HomeMy WebLinkAboutOrdinance 5990 09/17/2001
t-'"
.
.
.
Ii .
. :0
ORDINANCE NO. 5990
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE EUGENE-SPRINGFIELD METROPOLITAN
AREA GENERAL PLAN TO ADOPT A REVISED "TRANSPORTATION
ELEMENT" AND RELATED CHANGES TO THE PLAN TEXT; ADOPTING
REVISIONS TO THE EUGENE-SPRINGFIELD TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM
PLAN (TRANSPLAN); AND ADOPTING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE.
WHEREAS, Chapter IV of the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General
. Plan (Metro Plan) sets forth procedures for amendment of the Metro Plan, which for
Springfield are implemented by the provisions of Article 7 of the Springfield
Development Code; and
WHEREAS, the Metro Plan identifies the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area
Transportation Plan (TransPlan) as a special purpose functional plan which forms the
basis for the Transportation Element of the Metro Plan and guides surface transportation
improvements in the metropolitan area; and
WHEREAS, the TransPlan serves the goals, objectives and policies of the Metro
Plan by-addressing multimodal transportation, including street and highway needs, ,
bicycle facilities, transit and parking facilities based on development strategies in the
Metro Plan and, in addition, the TransPlan contains policies relating to air quality and
financing of transportation projects; and
WHEREAS, the current TransPlan adopted in 1986 and amended in 1989 and
1992, is in need of modification to reflect changes in State law and local transportation
needs; and
WHEREAS, following joint public hearings with the Eugene and Springfield
Planning Commissions on April 14 and 16, 1998, the Springfield Planning Commission
recommended TransPlan revisions to the Springfield City Council by action taken at a
public meeting on February 2, 1999; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has conducted public hearings and is now ready to
take action based upon the above recommendations and the evidence and testimony
already in the record as wellas the evidence and testimony presented at the public
hearings held in the matter of adopting revisions to the TransPlan and amending the
Metro Plan.
NOW, THEREFORE, the Common Council of the City of Springfield does
ordain as follows:
Section 1. The "Transportation Element" (Section III-F) of the Metro Plan is
revised as set forth in Part I of Exhibit "A" attached and incorporated herein by this
reference.
Ordinance No, 5990 amending the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan to Adopt a Revised "Transportation
Element" and Related Changes to the Plan Text; Adopting Revisions to the Eugene-Springfield Transportation System Plan
(Trans Plan);. and Adopting a Severability Clause
.
Section 2. Other amendments to~he pr6vision~,of the Metro Plan text necessary
for consistency with adoption of a reVised "TratispOfHUibn Element" are adopted as set
forth in Part II of Exhibit "A" attached and incorporated herein by this reference.
Section 3. The TransPlan, includea iii the Metro Plan by Ordinance 5328, enacted
on May 5, 1986, and as amended by subsequent action, is hereby further revised and
adopted as described in TransPlan (September 2001) set forth in Exhibit "B" attached and
incorporated herein by this reference.
Section 4. In addition to the Goals and Policies adopted in Section 1 above, the
project lists included in the 1986 TransPlan as amended with revisions resulting in the 20
year fiscally constrained Capital Jnvestment Actions project lists (programmed and
unprogrammed projects) contained in Tables la, 2 and 3a of Chapter 3 of the TransPlan
(September 2001) are adopted by this reference and made a part of the Metro Plan.
Project timing and estimated costs are not adopted as policy.
FURTHER, although not part of this Ordinance, the Springfield City Council.
adopt the Legislative Findings set forth in the attached Exhibit "C" in support of this
action.
.
If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this Ordinance is
for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, such
portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and such holding
shall not affect the validity ofthe remaining portions hereof.
Adopted by the Common Council of the City of Springfield this 17th day of
September ,2001 by a vote of ~ in favor 0 against.
Approved by the Mayor of the City of Springfield this
September, 2001.
ATTEST:
~~
City Recorder
REVIEWED & APPROVED
A~ TO FORM, \
---Jc::.')~~ ~ \-'C:A~\
DATE: -~Ll...l.\-L.1..Q!~..J_-
. OFFICE OF CiTV J\TTORNEv
.
Ordinance No. 5990 amending the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan to Adopt a Revised "Transportation
Element" and Related Changes to the Plan Text; Adopting Revisions to the Eugene-Springfield Transportation System Plan
(TransPlan); and Adopting a Severability Clause
.
.
.
Exhibit A
Part I:
Chapter III-F, Transportation Element ofthe Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area
General Plan (Metro Plan), is replaced with a new Chapter III-F to read as follows:
F. Transportation Element
The Transportation Element addresses surface and air transportation in the metropolitan
area. TransPlan, the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area Transportation Plan, provides
the basis for the surface transportation portions of this element and the Eugene Airport
Master Plan provides the basis for the air transportation portions.
TransPlan guides regional transportation system planning in the metropolitan area for a 20-
year period and serves the transportation planning needs of the proj ected population of
296,500,. TransPlan establishes the framework upon which all public agencies can make
consistent and coordinated transportation planning decisions. Goals and policies in
TransPlan are contained in this Transportation Element and are part of the adopted Metro
Plan. TransPlan project lists and project maps are also adopted as part of the Metro Plan.
This element complies with State Transportation Goal 12, "To provide and encourage a
safe, convenient, and economic transportation system." Three types of transportation
planning strategies are reflected in the goals and policies in this element: Transportation
demand management (TDM), land use, and system improvements. TDM strategies focus
on reducing demands placed on the transportation system, and thus system costs, by
providing incentives to redistribute or eliminate vehicle trips and by encouraging alternative
modes. Land use strategies focus on encouraging development patterns that reduce the
need for automobiles, reduce trip lengths, and support the use of alternative modes. System
improvements focus on increasing efficiency and adding capacity or new facilities to the
existing highway, transit, bicycle, and pedestrian systems.
Together, these strategies form a balanced policy framework for meeting local and state
transportation goals to: increase urban public transit ridership; reduce reliance on the
automobile; substitute automobile trips with alternative modes, such as walking and biking;
and reduce automobile energy consumption and transportation costs. Consistent with this
approach, the policies in this element are presented in the following categories:
1. Land Use
2. Transportation Demand Management
3. Transportation System Improvements
a) System- Wide
b) Roadways
c) Transit
Attachement B: Page 1 of21
.
.
.
d) Bicycle
e) Pedestrian
f) Goods Movement
g) Other Modes
4. Finance
Not all Transportation Element policies will apply to a specific transportation-related
decision. When conformance with adopted policy is required, policies in this and other
Metro Plan elements will be examined to determine which policies are relevant and can be
applied. When policies support varying positions, decision makers will seek a balance of
all applicable policies. Goals are timeless, but some policies will expire as they are
implemented.
Goals
1. Provide an integrated transportation and land use system that supports choices in modes
of travel and development patterns that will reduce reliance on the automobile and
enhance livability, economic opportunity, and the quality of life.
2.
Enhance the Eugene-Springfield metropolitan area's quality oflife and economic
opportunity by providing a transportation system that is:
a) Balanced,
b) Accessible,
c) Efficient,
d) Safe,
e) Interconnected,
f) Environmentally responsible,
g) Supportive of responsible and sustainable development,
h) Responsive to community needs and neighborhood impacts, and
i) Economically viable and financially stable.
Land Use
Findin2:s
1.
The Oregon Transportation Plan (OTP) (1992) states that Oregon's land use
development patterns have tended to separate residential areas from employment and
commercial centers, requiring people to drive almost everywhere they go; that the results
have been increased congestion, air pollution, and sprawl in the metropolitan areas and
diminished livability; that these auto-dependent land use patterns limit mobility and
transportation choices; and that reliance on the automobile has led to increased
congestion, travel distances, and travel times.
Attachement B: Page 2 of21
.
.
.
2.
Studies annotated in the Land Use Measures Task Force Report Bibliography have found
that land use development patterns have an impact on transportation choices; that
separation of land uses and low-density residential and commercial development over
large areas makes the distance between destinations too far apart for convenient travel by
means other than a car; and that people who live in neighborhoods with grid pattern
streets, nearby employment and shopping opportunities, and continuous access to
sidewalks and convenient pedestrian crossings tend to make more walking and transit
trips.
3. The Oregon Highway Plan (OHP)(January 1999) states that focusing growth on more
compact development patterns can benefit transportation by: reducing local trips and
travel on state highways; shortening the length of many vehicle trips; providing more
opportunities to walk, bicycle, or use available transit services; increasing opportunities to
develop transit, and reducing the number of vehicle trips to shop and do business.
4. OTP policies emphasize reducing reliance on the automobile and call for transportation
systems that support mixed-land uses, compact cities, and connections among various
transportation modes to make walking, bicycling, and the use of public transit easier. The
OTP provides that the state will encourage and give preference to projects and grant
proposals that support compact or infill development or mixed use projects. The OTP
also contains actions to promote the design and development of infrastructure and land
use patterns that encourage alternatives to the single-occupant automobile.
5.
The Oregon Transportation Planning Rule (TPR) [OAR 660-012;.0060 (1)(c,d)(5)]
encourages plans to provide for mixed-use, pedestrian-friendly development, based on
information that documents the benefits of such development and the Land Conservation
and Development Commission's policy interest in encouraging such development to
reduce reliance on the automobile. The rule [OAR 660-012-0045 (4)(a and e)] requires
local governments to adopt land use regulations that allow transit-oriented developments
on lands along transit routes and require major developments to provide either a transit
stop on site or connection to a transit stop when the transit operator requires such an
improvement. The rule [OAR 660-012-0045 (3)] also requires local governments to
adopt land use regulations that provide for safe and convenient pedestrian and bicycle
access within new developments and from these developments to adjacent residential
areas and transit stops and to neighborhood activity centers.
6. A 24-member Citizen Task Force, representing a broad range of interests in the Eugene-
Springfield area, created, evaluated, and refined the nodal development land use strategy
over a seven-month period as part of the update of TransPlan. The Task Force intended
the strategy to encourage development patterns that will support a multi-modal
transportation system.
Attachement B: Page 3 of21
.
.
.
7.
Nodal development is consistent with the policy direction of Policy IB of the OHP to
coordinate land use and transportation decisions to efficiently use public infrastructure
investments to:
· Maintain the mobility and safety of the highway system;
· Foster compact development patterns in communities;
.. Encourage the availability and use of transportation alternatives; and
· Enhance livability and economic competitiveness.
8. Nodal development is consistent with the Special Transportation Area designation
defined in the draft OHP. The designation is intended to guide planning and management
decisions for state highway segments inside nodal development areas.
9. Nodal development supports the fundamental principles, goals, and policies of the
adopted Metro Plan to achieve compact urban growth, increase residential densities, and
encourage mixed-use developments in designated areas. The Land Use Measures
Strategies Document found that nodal development also supports increased use of
alternative modes of transportation and increased opportunities for people to live near
their jobs and to make shorter trips for a variety of purposes.
10.
Based on an analysis of the Regional Travel Forecasting Model results, an overall
outcome of nodal development implementation will be that the percentage of person trips
under one mile can be increased to approximately 16.1 percent of all trips; and, on a
regional basis, that trip lengths will be slightly shorter in 2015 than under existing -
conditions, due, in part, to reduced trip lengths within nodal development areas.
11. Based on an analysis of the Regional Travel Forecasting Model results, investments in
non-auto modes, particularly Bus Rapid Transit (BRT), and implementation of nodal
development strategies will improve transportation choices by helping to increase the
percentage of non-auto trips from 14.4% to 17.0% by the year 2015. Increases in the
percentage of households and workers with access to ten-minute transit service will result
in a 49 percent increase in the percent of trips taken by bus.
12. The Market Demand Study for Nodal Development (ECONorthwest and Leland
Consulting Group, 1996) recommended that the public strategy for nodal development
should be flexible and opportunistic and include use of financial incentives, targeted
infrastructure investments, public-private partnerships, and an inviting administrative
atmosphere.
13. During the public review of the nodal development strategy, many comments were
received that identified the need for incentives for developers, builders, property owners,
and neighborhoods to ensure that nodal developments would. be built consistent with
design guidelines. The type of support and incentives suggested ranged from public
investments in infrastructure to technical assistance and economic incentives.
Attachement B: Page 4 of21
.
.
.
Policies
F -1. Apply the nodal development strategy in areas selected by each jurisdiction that have
identified potential for this type of transportation-efficient land use pattern. 1
F-2. Support application of the nodal development strategy in designated areas through
information, technical assistance, or incentives.
F-3. Provide for transit-supportive land use patterns and development, including higher
intensity, transit-oriented development along major transit corridors and near transit
stations; medium- and high-density residential development within 14 mile of transit
stations, major transit corridors, employment centers, and downtown areas; and
development and redevelopment in designated areas that are or could be well served by
existing or planned transit.
F-4. Require improvements that encourage transit, bicycles, and pedestrians in new
commercial, public, mixed-use, and multi-unit residential development.
F-5. Within three years of Trans Plan adoption, apply the ND, Nodal Development, designation
to areas selected by each jurisdiction, adopt and apply measures to protect designated
nodes from incompatible development and adopt a schedule for completion of nodal
plans and implementing ordinances.
Transportation Demand Management
Findin2:s
14. TDM addresses federal Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA 21) and state
TPR requirements to reduce reliance on the automobile, thus helping to postpone the need
for expensive capital improvements. The need for TDM stems from an increasing
demand for and a constrained supply of road capacity, created by the combined effects of
an accelerated rate of population growth (41% projected increase from 1995 to 2015) and
increasing highway construction costs; for example, the City of Eugene increased the
transportation systems development charge by a total of 15 percent to account for
inflation from 1993-1996.
15. The Regional Travel Forecasting Model estimates that average daily traffic on most
major streets is growing by 2-3 percent per year. Based on 1994 Commuter Pack Survey
results, half of the local residents find roads are congested at various times of the day; and
the vast majority finds roads are congested during morning and evening rush hours.
16.
The COMSIS TDM Strategy Evaluation Model, used in August 1997 to evaluate the
impact ofTDM strategies, found that vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and vehicle trips are
reduced up to 3 percent by voluntary strategies (e.g., employer-paid bus pass program)
I See Glossary for definitions of nodal development.
- Attachement B: Page 5 of21
.
.
.
and up to 10 percent by mandatory strategies (e.g., mandatory employer support); that
requiring employers to increase the cost of employee parking is far more effective than
reducing employee transit costs; and that a strong package of voluntary strategies has a
greater impact on VMT and vehicle trips that a weak package of mandatory strategies.
17.
Transit system ridership has increased 53 percent since the first group pass program was
implemented in 1987 (with University of Oregon students and employees).
18.
The OHP recognizes that TDM strategies can be implemented to reduce trips and impacts
to major transportation facilities, such as freeway interchanges, postponing the need for
investments in capacity-increasing projects.
19.
An Evaluation of Pricing Policies for Addressing Transportation Problems
(ECONorthwest, July 1995)found that implementation of congestion pricing in the
Eugene-Springfield area would be premature because the level of public acceptance is
low and the costs of implementation are substantial; and that parking pricing is the only
TDM pricing strategy that would be cost-effective during the 20-year planning period.
Policies
F-6. Expand existing TDM programs and develop new TDM programs. Establish TDM bench
marks and if the bench marks are not achieved, mandatory programs may be established.
F -7. Increase the use of motor vehicle parking management strategies in selected areas
throughout the Eugene-Springfield metropolitan area.
F-8. Implement TDM strategies to manage demand at congested locations.
Transportation System Improvements: System-Wide
Findin2:s
20. The number ofvehic1es, VMT, and use of the automobile are all increasing while use of
alternatives is decreasing. Between 1970 and 1990, the number of vehicles in Lane
County increased by 83 percent, while the number of households increased by 62 percent.
Between 1980 and 1990, VMT grew at a rate seven times that of the population growth.
The Regional Travel Forecasting Model projects that, by the year 2015, without
implementation of proposed TransPlan projects, non-commercial VMT will increase 52
percent while the percentage who bike will drop from 3.7% to 3.3%, walk from 8.9% to
7.9%, and the percentage who bus will increase only slightly from 1.8% to 1.9%.
21.
The OHP recognizes that access management strategies can be implemented to reduce
trips and impacts to major transportation facilities, such as freeway interchanges, and that
communities with compact urban designs that incorporate a transportation network of
Attachement B: Page 6 of21
.
.
.
arterials and collectors will reduce traffic impacts on state highways, postponing the need
for investments in capacity-increasing projects.
22.
OHP policy supports investment in facilities that improve intermodallinkages as a cost-
effective means to increase the efficient use of the existing transportation system.
23.
Current literature and research speaks to the relationship between street design and travel
behavior, finding that neighborhood impacts, such as through-traffic and speeding on
neighborhood streets, are affected by street design. For example, research by Richard
Dowling and Steven Colman reported in the article, Effects Of Increased Highway
Capacity: Results of a Household Travel Behavior Survey (1998) found that drivers'
number one preferred response to congestion was to find a faster route if the current one
becomes congested; and Calthorpe and DuanylPlatter-Zybecks and Anton Nelleson have
found that the layout and design of buildings and streets will influence user behavior and
that streets can be designed to reduce travel speeds and reduce cut-through trips.
Policies
F -9 Adopt by reference, as part of the Metro Plan, the 20- Year Capital Investment Actions
project lists contained in TransPlan. Project timing and estimated costs are not adopted
. as policy.
F-I0. Protect and manage existing and future transportation infrastructure.
F -11. Develop or promote intermodallinkages for connectivity and ease of transfer among all
transportation modes.
F-12. Preserve corridors, such as rail rights-of-way, private roads, and easements of regional
significance, that are identified for future transportation-related uses.
F-13. Support transportation strategies that enhance neighborhood livability.
Transportation System Improvements: Roadways
Findings
24. The Regional Travel Forecasting Model forecasted increased traffic congestion on
roadways over the next 20 years, ranging from almost two to over four times the existing
congestion levels.
25.
Level of service (LOS) standards are a nationally accepted means for measuring the
performance of roadway facilities. LOS analysis methods are standardized through the
Transportation Research Board's Highway Capacity Manual.
26.
The OHP establishes performance standards for all state highways in Oregon. OAR 660-
012-0015 requires coordination of transportation system plans with the state.
Attachement B: Page 70f21
.
... .
.'
.
Policies
F-14. Address the mobility and safety needs of motorists, transit users, bicyclists, pedestrians,
and the needs of emergency vehicles when planning and constructing roadway system
improvements.
F -15. Motor vehicle level of service policy:
I. Use motor vehicle level of service standards to maintain acceptable and reliable
performance on the roadway system. These standards shall be used for:
a) Identifying capacity deficiencies on the roadway system.
b) Evaluating the impacts on roadways of amendments to transportation
plans, acknowledged comprehensive plans and land-use regulations,
pursuant to the TPR (OAR 660-12-0060).
c) Evaluating development applications for consistency with the land-use
regulations of the applicable local government jurisdiction.
2.
Acceptable and reliable performance is defined by the following levels of service
under peak hour traffic conditions: LOS E within designated nodal development
areas and within Eugene's Central Area Transportation Study (CATS) area, and
LOS D elsewhere.
3. Performance standards from the OHPshall be applied on state facilities in the
Eugene-Springfield metropolitan area.
TransPlan recognizes that, in some cases, the level of service on a facility may be
substandard and transportation system improvements to bring performance up to standard
within the planning horizon may not be feasible. These cases may arise from severe
constraints due to environmental conditions. Likewise, lack of pubic agency financial
resources and land use constraints may limit the feasibility of transportation system
improvements. It is not the intent of this policy to delay development in such cases. The
intent is to:
a. Defer capacity additions until existing constraints can be overcome; or,
b. Develop an alternative mix of strategies (e.g., land use, TDM, short-term safety
improvements) to address the problem.
F-16. Promote or develop a regional roadway system that meets combined needs for travel
through, within, and outside the region.
F-17. Manage the roadway system to preserve safety and operational efficiency by adopting
regulations to manage access to roadways and applying these regulations to decisions
related to approving new or modified access to the roadway system.
Attachement B: Page 8 of21
. Transportation System Improvements: Transit
Findin2s
27. The 1990 Us. Census of Population reported that about 10 percent of all households in
the Eugene-Springfield area did not own a vehicle.
28. Transit services are particularly important to the transportation disadvantaged population:
persons who are limited in meeting their travel needs because of age, income, location,
physical or mental disability, or other reasons. The Americans with Disabilities Act
(ADA) requires fixed-route systems like LTD's to provide a comparable level of service
to the elderly and persons with disabilities who are unable to successfully use the local
bus service. L TD's Americans with Disabilities Act Paratransit Plan, 1994-1995 Update,
January 18, 1995, was found to be in full compliance with the ADA by the Federal
Transit Administration.
29.
The role of urban public transit in meeting trip needs has increased within the
metropolitan area since 1970. In 1971, there were 2,260 LTD passenger trips on a
weekday and, in 1995, ridership had increased to 20,000 per day, or 1.8% of all
metropolitan trips. The Regional Travel Forecasting Model forecasts transit use to
increase to 2.7% of trips by 2015 with proposed TransPlan projects and policy
implementation.
.
30. The Urban Rail Feasibility Study Eugene/Springfield Area (July 1995) concluded that
projected 2015 ridership for an urban rail system was too low to be competitive with
other cities seeking federal rail transit funding; and that Bus Rapid Transit (BR T) could
significantly improve transit service for substantially less capital investment and lower
operational costs than urban rail.
31. OHP policy supports investment in Park-and-Ride facilities as a cost-effective means to
increase the efficient use of the existing transportation system.
Policies
F-18. Improve transit service and facilities to increase the system's accessibility, attractiveness,
and convenience for all users, including the transportation disadvantaged population.
F-19. Establish a BRT system composed of frequent, fast transit service along major corridors
and neighborhood feeder service that connects with the corridor service and with activity
centers, if the system is shown to increase transit mode split along BR T corridors, if local
governments demonstrate support, and if financing for the system is feasible.
.
F-20.Implement traffic management strategies and other actions, where appropriate and practical,
that give priority to transit and other high occupancy vehicles.
Attachement B: Page 9 of21
.
.
.
F-21. Expand the Park-and-Ride system within the metropolitan area and nearby communities.
Transportation System Improvements: Bicycle
Findin2:s
32. In 1995, there were 126 miles of bikeways in the metropolitan area. Implementation of
proposed TransPlan projects would approximately double the lane miles for bicycles..
33. Over the past 20 years, Eugene and Springfield have built an extensive bikeway system.
The focus over the next 20 years is on the construction of "Priority Bikeway Projects"
which consist of those projects that are along an essential core route on which the overall
system depends, fill in a critical gap in the existing bicycle system, or overcome a barrier
where no other nearby existing or programmed bikeway alternatives exist, or significantly
improve bicycle users safety in a given corridor.
34. OAR 660-012-0045 (3) requires local governments to adopt land use regulations to
require bikeways along new and reconstructed arterial and major collector streets and to
connect new development with nearby neighborhood activity centers and major
destinations.
Policies
F-22. Construct and improve the region's bikeway system and provide bicycle system support
facilities for both new development and redevelopment/expansion.
F-23. Require bikeways along new and reconstructed arterial and major collector streets.
F-24. Require bikeways to connect new development with nearby neighborhood activity centers
and major destinations.
F-25. Give funding priority (ideally within the first 3 to 5 years after adoption of TransPlan,
subject to available funding) to stand-alone bikeway projects that are included in the
definition of "Priority Bikeway Miles" and that increase the use of alternative modes.
Attachement B: Page 10 of21
.
.
.
Transportation System Improvements: Pedestrian
Findinf!s
35. OAR 660-012-0045 (3) requires local governments to adopt land use regulations to
provide for a pedestrian environment that is well integrated with adjacent land uses and
designed to enhance the safety, comfort, and convenience of walking; a continuous
pedestrian network with reasonably direct travel routes between destination points; and
sidewalks along urban arterial and collector roadways, except freeways.
Policies
F-26. Provide for a pedestrian environment that is well integrated with adjacent land uses and is
designed to enhance the safety, comfort, and convenience of walking.
F-27. Provide for a continuous pedestrian network with reasonably direct travel routes between
destination points.
F-28. Construct sidewalks along urban area arterial and collector roadways, except freeways.
Transportation System Improvements: Goods Movement
Findinf!s
36. The OTP recognizes that goods movement of all types makes a significant contribution to
the region's economy and wealth and contributes to residents' quality of life. OTP Policy
3A promotes a balanced freight transportation system that takes advantage of the inherent
efficiencies of each mode.
37. There are no maritime port or navigation facilities in the metropolitan area.
38. Goods movement is directly supported by system-wide and roadway transportation
system improvements.
Policies
F-29. Support reasonable and reliable travel times for freight/goods movement in the Eugene-
Springfield region.
Attachement B: Page 11 of2I
.
.
.
Transportation System Improvements: Other Modes
Findings
39. The Eugene Airport is located outside the urban growth boundary (UGB) to protect it
from incompatible development as well as to reduce airport-related impacts on
development within the UGB. The area of the airport designated Government and
Education on the Metro Plan diagram receives municipal water, wastewater, fire, and
police services.
40. The Pacific Northwest High Speed Rail Southern Terminus Study (Wilbur Smith
Associates, 1995) found that rail-related infrastructure improvements needed along the
corridor include improved signals, grade crossings, track, and depots. These
improvements are important to the success of high speed rail because Eugene-Springfield
is the southern terminus to the high speed rail corridor.
41. OTP Policy IF provides for a transportation system with connectivity among modes
within and between urban areas, with ease of transfer among modes and between local
and state transportation systems.
Policies
F-30. Support public investment in the Eugene Airport as a regional facility and provide land
use controls that limit incompatible development within the airport environs. Continue to
use the Eugene Airport Master Plan as the guide for improvements of facilities and
services at the airport.
F - 31. Support provision of rail-related infrastructure improvements as part of the Cascadia
High Speed Rail Corridor project.
F-32. Support improvements to the passenger rail station and inter-city bus terminals that
enhance usability and convenience.
Finance
Findings
42. Transportation costs are rising while revenues are shrinking and this trend is expected to
continue. The 1999 Oregon Highway Plan estimated total 20-year highway needs of
about $29 billion, but projected revenues of only about $14 billion.
43.
TransPlan estimates that operations, maintenance, and preservation (OM&P) of the
metropolitan transportation system will cost $1.2 billion in 1997 dollars to maintain at
current levels to the year 2020. Revenues for OM&P, including a regularly increasing
state gas tax and federal forest receipts at current non-guaranteed levels after the
Attachement B: Page 12 of21
.
.
.
44.
45.
46.
47.
48.
guarantee expires, are estimated at $988 million, leaving a conservative estimated
shortfall of about $212 million over the 20-year period before the implementation of
fiscal constraint strategies.
The projects proposed in TransPlan demonstrate that nearly all of the region's travel over
the next 20 years will rely on existing streets, highways, and bicycle and pedestrian
facilities, emphasizing the importance of preservation and maintenance of these facilities.
Historically, the State Highway Trust Fund (SHTF) and federal Forest Receipts,
significant sources of transportation revenues, have funded OM&P of the regional
transportation system. Currently, SHTF revenues are not increasing with inflation and
federal Forest Receipts are declining.
According to estimates prepared for the TransPlan Finance Committee, about 130 miles
of roads (about 15 percent of the system) are currently in need of either resurfacing or
reconstruction with an estimated cost of$61 million in 1995 dollars.
Funding allocations of State cigarette tax revenues designated for special need transit
services are guided by the Special Transportation Fund Advisory Committee as per ORS
391.800-391.830 and OAR732-05, 732-10, 732-20 governing the Special Transportation
Fund Program.
Currently, systems development charge (SDC) methodologies charge new development
only for the city's portion of the arterial-collector system; metro area state and county
facilities are excluded from the calculation of SDC rates; and assessments only partially
fund projects that are improving existing facilities to urban standards. '
49. Focus groups convened during the TransPlan update process expressed the preference for
mixed-use development to be encouraged and facilitated rather than required. Offering
financial incentives and other support for nodal development is consistent with focus
groups responses.
50. Under the TEA 21, 10 percent of Surface Transportation Program funds allocated to the
state must be used for transportation enhancement activities, including construction of
facilities for bicycles and pedestrians, but a local match is required. State funding for
bikeways is primarily limited to Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) Highway
Funds, which are used mainly for adding bicycle lanes to existing and new streets, but
may be used for other bicycle projects in the right-of-way. Local jurisdictions may also
fund bikeways through the local road construction and maintenance budget 'and from
general funds, park district funds, special bond levies, and SDCs. Regarding transit,
TransPlan anticipates that discretionary federal grant funds will pay for up to 80 percent
of the capital cost of the BRT system, based on trends in federal funding for LTD capital
projects over the last ten years.
Attachement B: Page 13 of21
Policies
.
F-33. Support development of a stable and flexible transportation finance system that provides
adequate resources for transportation needs identified in TransPlan.
F-34. Operate and maintain transportation facilities in a way that reduces the need for more
expensive future repair.
F-35. Set priorities for investment ofODOT and federal revenues programmed in the region's
Transportation Improvement Program to address safety and major capacity problems on
the region's transportation system.
F-36. Require that new development pay for its capacity impact on the transportation system.
F-37. Consider and include among short-term project priorities, those facilities and
improvements that support mixed-use, pedestrian-friendly nodal development, and
increased use of alternative modes.
F-38. The City of Eugene will maintairi transportation performance and improve safety by
improving system efficiency and management before adding capacity to the transportation
system under Eugene's jurisdiction. (Eugene-Specific finance policy)
. Part II:
The following sections of the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan
(Metro Plan) are amended in order to be consistent with the findings and policies of the
Transportation Element. These revisions are listed in order as they appear in the Metro Plan.
They are indicated by chapter, section, and page number of the July 1997 reprint of the 1987
Metro Plan. Deletions to the text are shown in strike-out and additions are in bold.
Chapter I: Introduction
B. Purpose
Amend the following text starting on page 1-1, sixth paragraph:
"More specifically, the General Plem Metro Plan provides the overall framework for the
following planning functions. The Plan: ...
11. Identifies the major transportation, sanitary wastewater, aa4 stormwater, se'.ver,
and water projects needed to serve a future population of293,700 301,400."
. Chapter II: Plan Principles
AttachementB: Page 14 of21
A. Metropolitan Goals
.
Amend Section A by replacing the transportation goals with new transportation goals
from the proposed Transportation Element, as follows (page II-A-2):
Transportation
Provide for a more balanced transportation system to give mobility to all segments .
of the community.
Serve the existing and future arrangement of land uses "'lith efficient safe,
convenient, and economic transportation systems for the movement of people and
goods. "
"Provide an integrated transportation and land use system that supports
choices in modes of travel and development patterns that will reduce reliance
on the automobile and enhance livability, economic 'opportunity, and the
quality of life.
Enhance the Eugene-Springfield metropolitan area's quality of life and
economic opportunity by providing a transportation system that is:
.
j) Balanced,
k) Accessible,
I) Efficient,
m) Safe,
n) Interconnected,
0) Environmentally responsible,
p) . Supportive of responsible and sustainable development,
q) Responsive to community needs and neighborhood impacts, and
r) Economically viable and financially stable."
B. Growth Management and the Urban Service Area
Move the following existing Transportation Element Policy 17 (page III-F-7) to B.
Growth Management and the Urban Service Area, Policy 32 (page II-B-9):
".}..+.. 32.
If expansion of the urban growth boundary is contemplated, all other options should be
considered and eliminated before consideration of expanding the urban growth boundary
in the area west of Highway 99 and north of Royal Avenue."
E. The Plan Diagram
.
I. Delete the following text in Section II.E.I. referring to floating nodes (page II-E-3,
second paragraph):
"In addition, several! 0 to 30 acre medium density residential designations are
shown as "floating nodes" with related commercial facilities. This designation
Attachement B: Page 15 of21
reflects statements in the Residential Land Use and Housing, Energy, and
Transportation elements directed to the proyision of a variety of housing densities,
types, and locations and linkage of medium density housing with urban public transit.
'Where these "floating nodes" are shown at intersecting arterial streets, they may
actually occur on one or more quadrants of the intersection, as determined by local
decisions. Where they appear in the midst of otherwise low density residential
neighborhoods, their actualloeations require local analysis."
.
2. Delete the following Section ILE.2.c (page II-E-4):
"e. Floating Node
.
Floating nodes are intended to accommodate a portion of the forecasted demand
for commeroialland. These nodes are also intended to faoilitate achievement of
the energy and transportation policies of the Plan by encouraging, 'Nhene','er
possible, medium density residential development adjacent to or surrounding
commercial development. The commercial portion of the node may range in scale
from neighborhood commeroial to community commercial (e.g., 5 20 acres),
depending upon the geographic area to be served by the floating node. Land
designated for commercial and residential uses does not need to be developed
simultaneously.' The exact location of floating nodes shall be determined by local
decisions or a refinement plar.ning process.
The process for establishment of a floating node must include the follo';ving
elements:
(1) . identification of the primary geographic area intended to be served by the
commercial center;
(2) an inventory of commercial area/uses presently existing within the primary
geographio area; and
(3) identification of the amount and location of area plar.ned for medium
density residential uses (area[s] for medium density residential use must
be shown unless precluded by other Plan Policies or absence of available
laad}:
The identification of a floating node through a refinement plan or other local
decision shall be based on the following criteria:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(1)
. (5)
applicable goals, polioies, and background information of the },1ctropolitcm
l2lmr:
,
applicable refinement and functional plans;
any applicable provisions of the Capital Improvement Program;
depending upon the scale of the floating node, consistency with either the
locational criteria for neighborhood commercial facilities or community
commercial centers as described in the Pkm; and
commercial uses are located in an area served by at least a minor arterial
street, in accordance '",.ith the transportation and energy goals and policies
Attachement B: Page 16 of 21
.
.
.
in items 1 and 2 above. The commercial uses can front on a street
classified at least as 0. minor arterial. The conflicts with truffic movement
on the arterial can be minimized by the use of frontage roads, side streets,
and properly located direct access." (Page II E 5)
3. Add the following text to insert "Nodal Development Area" as a plan designation in a
new Section ILEA and renumber subsequent sections accordingly (page II-E-IO):
"Nodal Development Area (Node)
Areas identified as nodal development areas in TransPlan are considered to have
potential for this type of land use pattern. Other areas, not proposed for nodal
development in TransPlan, may be determined to have potential for nodal
development.
.Nodal development is a mixed-use pedestrian-friendly land use pattern that seeks to
increase concentrations of population and employment in well-defined areas with
good transit service, a mix of diverse and compatible land uses, and public and
private improvements designed to be pedestrian and transit oriented.
Fundamental characteristics of nodal development require:
· Design elements that support pedestrian environments and encourage transit use,
walking and bicycling;
· A transit stop which is within walking distance (generally v.. mile) of anywhere in
the node;
· Mixed uses so that services are available within walking distance;
· Public spaces, such as parks, public and private open space, and public facilities,
that can be reached without driving; and
· A mix of housing types and residential densities that achieve an overall net density
of at least 12 units per net acre."
4. Add the following to the text for the Legend Block on the Metro Plan Diagram (Page
II-E-18):
"ND - Nodal Development" (with ND inside a polygon, but no color to allow
underlying designation to show through.)
Chapter III: Specific Elements
B. Economic Element
1. Amend Finding 13 as follows (page III-B-3):
Attachement B: Page 17 of21
.
"I3.Major employment centers areas include the Eugene and Springfield central
business districts, the University of Oregon area, Sacred Heart Hospital, the
Southern Pacific railyards, the west Eugene industrial area, the east north and
south Springfield industrial areas, the Highway 99N industrial area, Goodpasture
:IslaflEl, Country Club Road, Chad Drive, and the Mohawk-Northgatearea."
2. Amend Policy 18, as follows (page III-B-5):
"18. Encourage the development of transportation facilities which would improve
access to industrial and commercial areas and improve freight movement
capabilities by implementing the policies and projects in the Eugene-Springfield
Metropolitan Area Transportation Plan (TransPlan) and the },1ahlo1'l Sweet
.JLie/d Eugene Airport Master Plan., as outlined in Chapter Sea), "On i\.irport
Land Use."
3. Delete Policy 13 referring to floating nodes (page III-B-7).
"30. The City of Eugene shall initiate refinement plans to determine the type and
location of commercial and residential land uses in floating nodes prior to the
update of the }.1ctropoliw1'l ..ohm (note: this Policy does not preclude privately
initiated refinement plans for the purpose of cstablishing floating nodes)."
.
C. Environmental Resources Element
1. Amend the following finding as follows (page III-C-6).
"32. Federal Highway Administration noise standards apply to nevI highway
construction, not mdsting streets. whenever federal funds are used in the
construction or reconstruction of a highway. A noise study is required if
the construction will add a through-lane of traffic or significantly alter
either the horizontal or vertical alignment of the highway. The
significance of a change in alignment has to do with the effect that the
alignment change has on noise levels. State funded ODOT projects are
generally developed in conformance with the federal noise standards. .yg.
Housing and Urban Development noise standards apply only to federally
assisted housing near existing and proposed high',vays. The State of Oregon
does not have noise standards go":erning general highway noise levels."
2. Delete Finding 33 (page III-C-6).
.
"33. Forecasted traffic on existing and plar...ned streets indicate 20 miles of existing
streets and 10 miles of streets in. year 2000 have the potential to mceeed noise
levels for sensitive land uses such as residences, parks, schools, and
hospitals. "
3. Replace Finding 34 and with the following text (page III-C-6).
Attachement B: Page 18 of 21
.
,
"34. As population gro'Nth occurs, the associated increase in emissions of carbon
monoxide and particulate matter from auto exhaust and residential heating
with wood, combined '-'lith all the other sources, may eventually cause air
quality standards for these pollutants to be exceeded in the metropolitan area.
Under these conditions, additional control measures may be necessary. These
mitigating measures could include, for example, maximizing efficient traffic
flow through critical areas, additional control requirements on existing
stationary and mobile sources of emissions, and restricting certain new sources
of emissions. "
"34. The Eugene-Springfield area is currently in compliance with national
standards for carbon monoxide. The region will continue to be in
compliance with the carbon monoxide standard in the future. Vehicle
fleet turnover and stricter emission controls on newer vehicles are factors
that will contribute to lower emissions in the future."
4. Delete Finding 35 (page III-C-6).
"35. Transportation related air pollution in the form of emissions from autos,
trucks, and buses contributes significantly to the metropolitan area's air quality
problems."
.
D. Willamette River Greenway Element
I. Amend the introductory text, as follows (page III - D-I).
In the metropolitan area, a large portion of land within the Greenway is in public
ownership or public parks such as Mount Pisgah, Skinner's Butte, Alton Baker, and
Island Park. Future proposed park acquisitions, such as the Goodpasture Island gravel
ponds, will further expand the opportunity for public access and enjoyment of the
river area. The three jurisdictions cooperated in the development of a bicycle-
pedestrian trail system that extends along the Greenway from south of Springfield to
north of Eugene and into the River Road area. This system includes tHree five bike
bridges across the river."
E. Environmental Design Element
I. Delete Policy 9 (page III-E-4).
.
"9. Refinement Plans shall be developed to address compatibility of land uses, safety,
crime prevention, and 'lisual impact along arterial and collector streets, within
mixed use areas. During the interim period before the adoption of a refinement
plan, these considerations shall be addressed by cities in approving land use
Attachement B: Page 19 of21
.
.
.
applications in mixed use areas by requiring conditions of approval where
necessary."
G.
Public Utilities, Services, and Facilities Element
1. Combine the following existing Transportation Element Policies 9 and 10 (page II-F-6) as
one policy, amend as follows, and move to the Public Utilities, Services and Facilities Element,
creating Policy 24 (page III-G-7).
"~ 24. The Eugene Airport Mahlon S'.veet Field shall be served with the necessary
urban services required to operate the airport as an urban facility. -l4-
Development within the airport environs but outside the airport proper and
outside the urban service area outside the urban growth boundary in the
vicinity of the airport, outside the portion of the airport boundary
designated Government and Education in the Metro Plan diagram, shall
not be provided with urban services."
H. Parks and Recreation Facilities Element
1. Delete reference to Neighborhood Centers in the introductory text and renumber
subsequent park types accordingly (page III-H-i).
6. Neighborhood Centers
Neighborhood centers, some of'Nhich are community schools, emphasize
social, ci'.'ic, and educational programs for young people and adults."
2. Delete Finding 3.e. and re-letter subsequent items in this finding (page III-H-3).
"e. Based on NRP.^.. standards, there is a deficiency of neighborhood centers."
3. Amend Policy5 as follows (page III-H-5)
"5. Develop mechanisms and processes by which residents of an area to be served by
a neighborhood park, neighborhood center, or play lot can participate in the
design, development, and maintenance of the facility."
K. Citizen Involvement Element
1. Amend Finding 3 as follows (page III-K-2).
"3. Springfield, Lane County, and Eugene each use either their local planning
commission or a committee for citizen involvement in monitoring citizen
involvement in the planning process. There are also several citizen advisory
committees involved with individual components ofthe process, sueh as housing
and transportation planning."
Attachement B: Page 20 of21
.
.
.
...
2. Amend Finding 10 as follows (page III-K-2).
"10. In 1987, the Metropolitan Planning Committee was replaced by the
Metropolitan Policy Committee (MPC). The MPC is comprised of two elected
officials each from Eugene, Springfield and Lane County. The chief
administrative officers of the three jurisdictions serve as non-voting, ex-officio
members of the MPC. When the MPC is considering metropolitan
transportation matters, the two members of the Lane Transit District Board
shall serve as voting members and the General Manager of the Lane Transit
District and the Director of the Oregon Department of Transportation shall aloo
serve as non-voting, ex-officio members ofMPC."
Chapter V: Glossary
Add the following definition to the Glossary.
Nodal development (node): Nodal development is a mixed-use, pedestrian-friendly land
use pattern that seeks to increase concentrations of population and employment in well-
defined areas with good transit service, a mix of diverse and compatible land uses, and
public and private improvements designed to be pedestrian and transit oriented.
Fundamental characteristics of nodal development require:
· Design elements that support pedestrian environments and encourage transit
use, walking, and bicycling;
· A transit stop which is within walking distance (generally 1/4 mile) of anywhere
in the node;
· Mixed uses so that services are available within walking distance;
· Public spaces, such as parks, public and private open space, and public facilities,
that can be reached without driving; and
· a mix of housing types and residential densities that achieve an overall net
density of at least 12 units per net acre.
Nodal developments will vary in the amount, type, and orientation of commercial, civic,
and employment uses; target commercial floor area ratios; size of buildings; and the
amount and types of residential uses.
Attachement B: Page 21 of21
\.'
.
.
.
Exhibit C
FINDINGS IN SUPPORT OF THE ADOPTION OF AMENDMENTS
TO THE TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT OF THE
EUGENE-SPRINGFIELD METROPOLITAN AREA GENERAL PLAN;
AMENDMENTS TO MAlNT AIN THE CONSISTENCY OF THE
EUGENE-SPRINGFIELD METROPOLITAN AREA GENERAL PLAN;
AND REVISIONS TO THE EUGENE-SPRINGFIELD
TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM PLAN
INTRODUCTION
In the Eugene-Springfield metropolitan area, land use and transportation planning begins
at the regional level. The Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan (Metro
Plan) is the acknowledged comprehensive plan forthe cities of Eugene and Springfield
and unincorporated areas of Lane County within the Metro Plan boundary. Originally
acknowledged by the Land Conservation and Development Commission in 1982, the
Metro Plan is currently undergoing its second periodic review. The Metro Plan is a
framework plan, and is supplemented by more detailed refinement plans. In the Eugene-
Springfield metropolitan area, refinement plans include functional plans, special area
studies and neighborhood plans. The transportation system plan for the Eugene-
Springfield metropolitan area (TransPlan) was adopted by Eugene, Springfield and Lane
County in 1986 as a refinement plan to the Metro Plan and this update of TransPlan was
initiated by the elected officials in 1992. In turn, TransPlan as a regional refinement plan
to the Metro Plan may be supplemented by plans specific to the Eugene or Springfield
urban areas, such as the Eugene Local Street Plan and Springfield Bicycle Plan. In the
context of these actions adopting revisions to TransPlan and amendments to the Metro
Plan, the term Orefinement pIanO is used to refer to a plan adopted as a refinement to the
Metro Plan rather than the Transportation Planning Rule (OAR 660, Division 12) defini-
tion of Orefinement pIanO as a specific type of amendment to a transportation system plan.
The Lane Council of Governments (LCOG) is the metropolitan planning organization
(MPO) designated by the Governor to coordinate transportation planning within the
Eugene-Springfield urbanized area. Eugene-Springfield is one of four Oregon metropoli-
tan areas subject to state and federal requirements for MPOs. LCOG has prepared the
TransPlan update with staff support from Eugene, Springfield, Lane County and Lane
Transit District (L TD). Other agencies involved in the planning process include the Ore-
gon Department of Transportation (ODOT), the Lane Regional Air Pollution Authority
(LRAPA), Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD), Federal
Highway Administration (FHW A), and the Federal Transit Agency (FTA).
Although not required by the Transportation Planning Rule when the TransPlan update
was initiated in 1992, the revised TransPlan is designed as an integrated transportation
Attachment C: Page 1 of 4 7
.)
and land use plan. As a result, the evaluation and selection of transportation system plan
alternatives included land use measures as well as transportation demand management
strategies and transportation system improvements. Based on direction from the elected
officials in 1997, the TransPlan update is based on the DEqual EmphasisD alternative, us-
ing all three of these fundamental components of transportation planning in a balanced
and integrated manner to address the identified transportation needs of the planning area~
The goals and policies in the revised TransPlan are also proposed for adoption as the
Metro Plan transportation goals and policies. The finance component of the revisions to
TransPlan includes 20-year financially constrained Capital Investment Actions project
lists. Those lists include projects from the 1986 TransPlan and, where supported by the
needs analysis of the Transportation Planning Rule (OAR 660, division 12), some pro-
jects from the 1986 TransPlan remain in the revised TransPlan and the project lists
adopted and incorporated by policy into the Metro Plan. A revised Metro Plan Transpor-
tation element and related amendments to the Metro Plan text will be adopted concurrent
with the adoption of the revisions to TransPlan.
.
Since the review of TransPlan and Metro Plan periodic review are being conducted simul-
taneously, work on those plans has been closely coordinated. Population and employ-
ment projections developed by the Lane Council of Governments for the 20-year planning
period were used for both TransPlan and Metro Plan periodic review. Policy direction in
both the revised TransPlan and the Residential Land Use and Housing Study, a periodic
review work task, support nodal development as a key land use strategy to achieve
higher-density, transportation-efficient development patterns.
.
The findings contained in this document demonstrate compliance with the applicable cri-
teria for adoption of amendments to the Metro Plan and amendments to TransPlan as a
refinement plan to the Metro Plan.
On June 28, 2001, the Lane Council of Governments Board of Directors, the body dele-
gated federal authority for transportation planning in the Eugene-Springfield metropolitan
area, adopted TransPlan in compliance with federal transportation requirements. The
LCOG Board Executive Committee adopted the plan air quality conformity determina-
tion, a federal requirement, on August 2,2001. Following adoption of the TransPlan up-
date by the Eugene and Springfield City Councils, Lane County Board of Commissioners
and Lane Transit District Board, the LCOG Board will act on amendments necessary to
make its June 28th adopted version consistent with the locally adopted version.
The following criteria from Eugene Code (EC) Section 9.128(3), Springfield Develop-
ment Code.(SDC) 7.070(3), and Lane Code (LC) 12.225(2) shall be applied by the
elected officials in approving or denying the amendments to the Metro Plan:
(a)
The amendment must be consistent with the relevant statewide planning
goals adopted by the Land Conservation and Development Commission;
and
Adoption of the amendments must not make the Metro Plan internally in-
consistent.
.
(b)
Attachment C: Page 2 .of 47
.
.
.
The TransPlan update is considered a major plan update under Section 9.138 ofthe
Eugene Code, 1971, and is not subject to the criteria for refinement plan amendments out-
lined in EC 9.139 through 9.148. The following criteria shall be applied by the elected
officials to the adoption of amendments to TransPlan as a refinement plan to the Metro
Plan:
(a) Consistency with the relevant statewide planning goals adopted by the
Land Conservation and Development Commission; and
(b) Consistency with the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan
(Metro Plan).
Since these approval criteria overlap, the findings in this document are organized as fol-
lows:
I.
II.
III.
IV.
findings of consistency of the Metro Plan and TransPlan amendments with the
applicable statewide planning goals;
findings of consistency of the Metro Plan and TransPlan amendments with the
applicable sections of the Transportation Planning Rule, OAR 660, Division 12;
findings of consistency of the revised TransPlan with the Metro Plan; and
findings that the Metro Plan amendments do not make the Metro Plan internally
inconsistent.
The following information, analysis, reports, minutes and materials are included along
with other material in the record of this proceedings. While this supporting background
material may not all be specifically mentioned or referenced in the findings, they provide
most of the factual basis for these findings:
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
Seventy-one documents published by the Lane Council of Governments, Eugene,
Springfield, the Lane Transit District or consultants and used as background
documents during the preparation of the TransPlan update, dated through June
2001, as listed in TransPlan Appendix D.
Minutes and agenda material of the Eugene, Springfield and Lane County plan-
ning commissions and Lane County Roads Advisory Committee public hearings
and work sessions; of the Eugene and Springfield City Councils, Lane County
Board of Commissioners and Lane Transit District public hearings and work ses-
sions; and of the meetings of the Metropolitan Policy Committee and its Trans-
Plan subcommittees.
Indexed public testimony included in the record of the planning commis-
sions/roads advisory committee process.
Oregon Transportation Plan, Oregon Department of Transportation, 1992
Oregon Highway Plan, Oregon Department of Transportation, January 1999
Oregon Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan, Oregon Department of Transportation, 1995
Model results of the Regional Travel Forecasting Model
Model results of the COMSIS TDM Strategy Evaluation Model
Findings of Consistency with Federal Requirements, Lane Council of Govern-
Attachment C: Page 3 of 47
o
o
o
o
ments, August 1999
Oregon Rail Passenger Policy Plan, 1992
Oregon Rail Freight Plan, 1994
Oregon Public Transportation Plan, 1997
Oregon Aviation System Plan, 1997
.
The Eugene and Springfield city councils and the Lane County Board of Commissioners
make the following findings with respect to the criteria for approval of the proposed
amendments to the Metro Plan and revisions to TransPlan as a refinement plan to the
Metro Plan.
I. FINDINGS OF CONSISTENCY WITH STATEWIDE PLANNING GOALS
Goal! 0 Citizen Involvement: To develop a citizen involvement program that insures
the opportunity for citizens to be involved in all phases of the planning process.
The amendments to the transportation element of the Metro Plan and the proposed revi-
sions to TransPlan were developed as a part of a comprehensive review of the Eugene-
Springfield transportation system plan (TransPlan). This review focused on revisions to
TransPlan and related amendments to the transportation element of the Metro Plan.
The Metro Plan designates the Joint Planning Commission Committee (JPCC), a commit- .
tee composed of two representatives from each of the metropolitan planning commis-
sions, as the citizens committee to review citizen involvement plans for metropolitan
planning projects. Phase I of the TransPlan update process began in June 1992 with the
development of a citizen involvement plan. The plan was prepared by the Lane Council
of Governments (LCOG) and approved by JPCC in September 1992. Beginning in No-
vember 1992, two community workshops were held to introduce the TransPlan update
process, surveys were distributed, and presentations were made to a variety of citizen
groups.
Phase II of the public involvement process was approved by the JPCC in April 1993 and
approved by the Metropolitan Policy Committee (MPC) in May 1993. MPC is composed
of six elected officials (two each from Eugene, Springfield and Lane County). When
considering metropolitan transportation planning matters such as the TransPlan update,
two members of the Lane Transit District Board also serve as voting members. Phase II
involved the selection of stakeholder groups and stakeholder group representatives. The
first stakeholder meeting had 68 ofthe 88 stakeholder representatives attending and over
150 attendees. Later stakeholder meetings had fewer participants, but all stakeholder
meetings had a strong level of citizen and stakeholder participation in the process of
forming and identifying issues. Stakeholder task forces were established for each of the
three revised TransPlan components 0 land use measures, transportation demand man-
agement and transportation system improvements 0 which developed strategies and rec- .
ommendations used in the preparation of alternative plan concepts.
Public involvement continued during Phase III of the process. From 1994 through 1996,
Attachment C: Page 4 of 47
.
JPCC reviewed various TransPlan involvement activities, including formation of focus
groups and public review of alternative plan concepts. Community workshops were con-
ducted, focus groups were formed and their input was used in later plan development.
Throughoutthe development process, a newsletter, Transportation News, was published
and circulated among the public. A guidebook focusing on transportation and growth is-
sues was developed and circulated. Copies of the proposed changes to the regional trans-
portation plan, including modifications as they were developed during the public in-
volvement, were widely distributed.
After extensive citizen and key stakeholder involvement, including elected government
officials and the Metropolitan Policy Commission, proposed revisions to TransPlan were
reviewed through a public hearing process before the Eugene, Springfield and Lane
County Planning Commissions and the Lane County Roads Advisory Committee
(LCRAC). The February 1998 draft TransPlan revision document was subject to the pub-
lic notification and hearing processes adopted by the City of Springfield in SDC 7.100,
City of Eugene in EC 9.118 to 9.136, and Lane County in LC 12.240. Notice ofthe pub-
lic hearings was published in the Register-Guard and the Springfield News.
.
The three planning commissions and the LCRAC held joint public hearings on April 14
and 16, 1998. In addition, the Springfield Planning Commission on April 21, 1998 and
the Eugene Planning Commission on June 30, 1998 held separate public hearings. On
August 18 and September 29, 1998, joint public work sessions were held by the planning
commissions of Eugene, Springfield and Lane County and the LCRAC. Over the next six
months the planning commissions and the LCRAC held a combined total of twenty pub-
lic work sessions. As a result of these sessions, the May 1999 Revised Draft TransPlan
and proposed amendments to the Metro Plan were forwarded to the elected governing
bodies of Eugene, Springfield and Lane County and the Lane Transit District Board.
The May 1999 Revised Draft TransPlan went through an extensive public and adopting
official review. A variety of techniques were used to inform and involve the public, in-
cluding: direct mail, broad distribution of TransPlan, web site information, direct contact
in person and via e-mail, Metro TV, distribution of Trans Plan summary to all Register-
Guard, Springfield News and Business Week subscribers, display ads, news releases, ac-
tive contact with print, radio and television media, public comment periods and public
hearings. Throughout the deliberations of the Revised Draft TransPlan by the adopting
officials, the public was informed of all meetings and any opportunities for public com-
ment.
.
The elected bodies of Eugene, Springfield and Lane County and the Lane Transit Board
conducted public hearings on September 29 and October 20, 1999 in which approxi-
mately 685 people submitted testimony in the form of an oral presentation at one ofthe
two public hearings, e-mail testimony, by letter or by petition. Following the close of the
record on October 29, 1999, TransPlan staff prepared a response to the public testimony,
which was provided to the adopting officials and the general public.
The TransPlan adopting officials re-opened the public record from January 25 to March
Attachment C: Page 5 of 47
31, 2000 to allow the public to submit additional testimony. The public record was re-
opened again from August 10 to October 6, 2000 to allow the opportunity to provide writ-
ten testimony on the Alternative Plan Performance Measures.
.
TransPlan adopting officials held an extensive number of work sessions to review and
deliberate on the public comment and the revised TransPlan. Fifth-four individual work
sessions were held through June 2001. In addition, the adopting officials conducted three
. joint work sessions to resolve any outstanding issues that resulted from the individual
meetings. The adopting officials then forwarded the unresolved outstanding issues to the
Metropolitan Policy Committee (MPC) for dispute resolution. All adopting officials re-
ceived agendas and materials for all MPC meetings. The public was kept informed of the
MPC meetings. and opportunities for public comment.
MPC formed two subcommittees to resolve the outstanding differences. One committee
was assigned to resolve the outstanding issues and the other was directed to identify and
recommend Alternative Plan Performance Measures to be forwarded to the Land Conser-
vation and Development Commission. Both committees met several times prior to send-
ing their recommendations to the full MPC. All issues approved by MPC were sent out
to the adopting officials for concurrence by the four adopting agencies.
The Department of Land Conservation and Development opened up their public comment .
period to allow residents of the Eugene-Springfield metropolitan area to comment directly
to the Land Conservation and Development Commission on the Alternative Plan Per-
formance Measures. On May 4,2001, the Land Conservation and Development Com-
mission conducted a public hearing prior to approving the Alternative Plan Performance
Measures for the Eugene-Springfield metropolitan area.
Additional detail on the TransPlan update process is provided in TransPlan Appendix C.
These processes afforded ample opportunity for citizen involvement consistent with
Goal 1.
Goal 2DLand Use Planning: To establish a land use planning process and policy
framework as a basis for all decisions and actions related to use of land and to assure an
adequate factual base for such decisions and actions.
Goal 2 has two elements: compliance with established land use planning processes and
demonstration of the appropriate grounds for any necessary actions, including exceptions.
Part 1. Compliance with Established Planning Processes
This proposal to adopt revisions to TransPlan and to amend the Metro Plan text is consis-
tent with Plan amendment provisions found in the Metro Plan, as codified in the Eugene
Code, Springfield Development Code and Lane County Code. The Metro Plan and
TransPlan are acknowledged pursuant to provisions specified by the Land Conservation
and Development Commission. The proposed adoption of a revised TransPlan as a re-
finement plan of the Metro Plan is consistent with the provisions of the Metro Plan and
AttachmentC: Page 6 of 47
.
.
.
.
the applicable statewide planning goals.
Provisions in the Springfield Development Code (SDC 77.010 to 7.110), Eugene Code
(EC 9.118 to 9.136), and Lane Code (LC 12.240) specify the means by which the Metro
Plan may be amended. The process for reviewing the requested amendments follows the
procedures outlined in the Springfield, Eugene and Lane County Codes and the require-
ments ofORS 197.610 et. seq. and of OAR 660 Division 18 for post-acknowledgement
plan amendments, thus conforming with the established land use planning process consis-
tent with Goal 2.
The development of the revisions to TransPlan and amendments to the Metro Plan pro-
ceeded through the process outlined under Goall, Citizen Involvement above, moving
from the general discussion of problems toward a more focused concentration on specific
provisions to deal with the identified issues. At every phase of the process, opportunities
were provided for citizen input. The citizen involvement process is detailed in TransPlan
Appendix C and summarized in the findings of compliance with Goal 1, Citizen In-
volvement.
The proposed revisions to TransPlan were guided and made possible by the collection of
a significant amount of relevant information, including traffic levels and other transporta-
tion facility uses, regional and local development plans, the development of transportation
alternatives and other matters. The capacities and limits of the natural resources of the
planning area, the location and condition of all important structures and transportation
facilities and the population and economic characteristics of the area were considered in
the development of revisions to TransPlan. A list of background documents used in the
preparation of TransPlan is provided in TransPlan Appendix D.
Part II. Adequate Factual Base/Exceptions
Action on the revisions to TransPlan and amendments to the Metro Plan are supported by
an adequate factual basis. A project that is not consistent with the statewide goals appli-
cable to the property upon which the project is expected to be located can only be devel-
oped if it can be shown, by means of the exception process set forth in Goal 2, that the
overall purpose of the statewide goals is better met by excepting the project from the ap-
plicable goal. None ofthe projects in the revised TransPlan require additional analysis
prior to TransPlan adoption under the exceptions requirements of Goal 2.
As described in Chapter Three of the revised TransPlan, the transportation needs analysis
required under the Transportation Planning Rule resulted in the Capital Investment Ac-
tions project lists in that chapter. The projects listed in the Capital Investment Actions
project lists are the product of an analysis of current and future transportation needs and
are based in part on the list of projects established in the previously acknowledged Trans-
Plan. Those acknowledged projects continue to address the areaDs transportation needs
and remain in the revised TransPlan. Some of the projects listed in Table la and Table Ib
in Chapter 3 of the TransPlan are previously acknowledged projects that address future
transportation needs. The projects in Table 1 a remain on the list of 20-year capital pro-
Attachment C: Page 7 of 47
jects because they have not yet been developed but they remain consistent with, and the
best means of addressing, the transportation needs for the Eugene-Springfield area identi-
fied in the revised TransPlan. The projects included on the Financially Constrained 20-
Year Capital Investment Actions project lists (Tables la, 2, 3a) establish a network of fa-
cilities that meet overall transportation needs for the 20-year planning period. The pro-
jects included in the revised TransPlan as a part of the future projects lists (Tables Ib, 3b)
are also included because they will meet the areaDs transportation needs for the period
beyond the initial 20 year planning period.
.
The Transportation Planning Rule and other administrative rules applying the statewide
goals allow the development of transportation projects on several types of property that
are designated for other uses. Table la of the revised TransPlan contains the financially
constrained list of roadway capital investments that will be needed in the Eugene-
Springfield metropolitan area over the next twenty years. Some are located completely
within the corporate limits of either Eugene or Springfield. Others are located in the un-
incorporated area between the corporate limits and the urban growth boundary (UGB). In
several instances the project follows along or outside of the UGB. Most projects that are
adjacent to, or cross, the UGB are permitted on rural lands by OAR 660-012-0065. Some
projects that are not scheduled for development within the projected period ofthe current
TransPlan, which generally includes projects listed in Chapter 3: Table 1 b, may not yet be
sufficiently planned to determine whether they require an exception at this time. In all
cases where a project's plans are sufficiently developed to analyze, projects fit within the
authorization of the Transportation Planning Rule.
.
Roadway improvement projects 60 (Jasper Road), 98 (Thurston Road), 454 (Greenhill
Road, Barger to West 11 th), 527 (Hunsaker Lane/Beaver Street), 533 (Irvington Drive),
635 (Delta Highway, Greenacres to Ayres), and 654 (Game Farm Road North) are coter-
minous with some portion ofthe UGB. In each instance these are existing two-lane roads
without bike lanes and sidewalks, with inadequate provisions for cyclists and people on
foot. The main purpose ofthese projects, as required by OAR 660-0 12-0020(2)(b), is to
reconstruct them to be consistent with their functional classification; accommodate per-
sonal vehicles and public transit; and provide safe and convenient bike and pedestrian
circulation. In each of these instances TransPlan calls for curbs, sidewalks and bikes
lanes, which is the typical design for urban streets. The provisions of OAR 660-12-0065
identify the types of improvements that are consistent with Statewide Planning Goals 3, 4,
11 and 14. This section of the Transportation Planning Rule does not prohibit or restrict
these types of improvements on the rural side of the street; therefore the issue of whether
these roads will be used by urban or rural motorists becomes moot. The proposed road
design lends itself to both categories of users, and in either context the proposed im-
provements are permitted by the Transportation Planning Rule. For each of these pro-
jects, the decision to install curbs and sidewalks on the rural side of the street will be
made during the project design phase. Regardless ofthe decision, the projects comply
with the Transportation Planning Rule.
.
Roadway improvement projects 66 (Jasper Road Extension), 297 (Bloomberg Connec-
tor), 485 (Greenhill Road, Barger Drive to Airport Road), 486 (Greenhill Road, north
Attachment C: Page 8 of 47
.
.
.
boundary of the airport to Airport Road), 554 (Wilkes Drive), and 625 (Coburg Road)
extend beyond the UGB to some degree. Project 66 (Jasper Road Extension) is a new
road within the Springfield UGB that requires a short realignment of Jasper Road outside
the UGB. Project 297 (Bloomberg Connector) is a realignment of a portion of McVay
Highway north of the 30th Avenue interchange. Project 485 (Greenhill Road, Barger
Drive to Airport Road) upgrades a substandard portion of Greenhill Road to meet the re-
quirements of OAR 660-0 12-0020(2)(b). Project 486 (Greenhill Road, north of airport
boundary to Airport Road) is a realignment of another segment of Greenhill Road neces-
sitated by safety improvements to the Eugene Airport. Project 554 (Wilkes Drive) im-
proves a short segment of Wilkes Drive eastofthe UGB. Project 625 (Coburg Road) up-
grades the segment of Coburg Road leading to Armitage State Park from the south to
meet the requirements of OAR 660-012-0020(2)(b). In each ofthese instances, the pro-
posed work is not only permitted by the Transportation Planning Rule; it is consistent
with the intent of the rule to upgrade roads to agency standards.
These findings and the documents and evidence developed in support of the revisions to
TransPlan and the Metro Plan amendments demonstrate compliance with Goal 2.
Goal 3: Agricultural Lands: To preserve and maintain agricultural lands.
No Plan policies or Plan diagram designations for agricultural lands are changed by the
revisions to TransPlan or the Metro Plan amendments. Projects that are projected to im-
pact agricultural lands have been previously acknowledged or are allowed by the Goal 3
and Goal 12 rules as explained more fully in the findings under Goal 2, above. Therefore,
the revisions to TransPlan and the Metro Plan amendments comply with Goal 3.
Goal 4DForest Lands: To conserve forest lands by maintaining the forest land base and
to protect the state Os forest economy by making possible economically efficient forest
practices that assure the continuous growing and harvesting of forest tree species as the
leading use on forest land consistent with sound management of soil, air, water, and fish
and wildlife resources and to provide for recreational opportunities and agriculture.
No Plan policies or Plan diagram designations for forest lands are changed by the adop-
tion of the Metro Plan amendments or revisions to TransPlan. None ofthe projects in the
20-year Capital Investment Actions project lists are located on land designated for forest
use. Forest lands are not impacted by the TransPlan revision~ or Metro Plan amend-
ments. Therefore, the revisions to TransPlan and the Metro Plan amendments comply
with Goal 4.
GoalSDOpen Spaces, Scenic and Historic Areas, and Natural Resources: To con-
serve open space and protect natural and scenic resources.
One project on the constrained list, Project 66, the Jasper Road Extension, is shown on
the Roadway Project map to be in an area designated for sand and gravel use, a Goal 5
resource. The project was previously included and acknowledged in the 1986 TransPlan
project list. Pursuant to the Goal 5 rule, OAR 660, Division 23, it may be necessary to
Attachment C: Page 9 of 47
conduct an analysis of the economic, social, environmental and energy consequences that
could result from a decision to allow a conflicting use. Design and construction plans
that will determine the exact placement of this roadway project will include a considera-
tion of any applicable Goal 5 resource. Therefore, the revisions to TransPlan and the
Metro Plan amendments comply with Goal 5.
.
Goal6DAir, Water and Land Resources Quality: To maintain and improve the quality
of the air, water and land resources of the state.
The proposal to adopt revisions to TransPlan and amend the Metro Plan text include poli-
cies relating to nodal development, transportation demand management and the encour-
agement of additional alternative modes of transportation, including transit, bicycles and
pedestrian use. Adoption of these policies is in part related to the need to maintain and
improve the air quality of the Metro area. Vehicle emissions is a measure of plan air
quality impact. The Eugene-Springfield area is required to meet National Ambient Air
Quality Standards for various pollutants. Of primary concern to the transportation system
are the standards for carbon monoxide (CO). The region is currently in compliance with
the standards for this pollutant. A comparison of the projected performance of the 2015
Financially Constrained TransPlan scenario with 1995 existing conditions shows a 10%
decrease in weekday tons of CO emissions. Therefore, the revisions to TransPlan and the
Metro Plan amendments comply with Goal 6.
.
Goal 7DAreas Subject to Natural Disasters and Hazards: To protect life and property
from natural disasters and hazards.
The proposal to adopt revisions to TransPlan and amend the Metro Plan text will not re-
sult in significant construction or alteration of property within the floodway or the flood-
plain. Depending on the final alignment of certain projects some road and bridge con-
struction may occur in areas within the floodway or floodplain subject to Goal 7. Any
construction of roadways or bridges, including the repair or improvement of existing
bridges and roadways, will be done in a manner consistent with applicable local, state and
federal regulations to assure that alterations have no negative effect on flooding or flood
risks. Therefore, the revisions to TransPlan and the Metro Plan amendments comply with
Goal 7.
GoalSDRecreational Needs:. To satisfy the recreational needs of the citizens of the state
and visitors and, where appropriate, to provide for the siting of necessary recreational
facilities including destination resorts.
The proposals to adopt revisions to TransPlan and amend the Metro Plan text include
policies to: (1) promote a regional roadway system that meets combined needs for travel
through, within and outside the region (Transportation System Improvements (TSI),
Roadway Policy #3); (2) support public investment in the Eugene Airport (TSI, Other
Modes Policy #1); (3) support provision of rail-related infrastructure improvements (TSI,
Other Modes Policy #2); and (4) support improvements to the passenger rail station and
inter-city bus terminals (TSI, Other Modes Policy #3). These policies are among those
Attachment C: Page 10 of 47
.
.
.
.
that support access to recreational facilities within the Metro Plan area and to recreational
opportunities outside the area. Construction of the proposed transportation projects will
make recreational facilities more available without an unacceptable increase in vehicle
miles traveled or congestion. Therefore, the revisions to TransPlan and the Metro Plan
amendments comply with Goal 8.
Goal 9DEconomic Development: To provide adequate opportunities throughout the
state for a variety of economic activities vital to the health, welfare, and prosperity of
OregonOs citizens.
The proposals to adopt revisions to TransPlan and amend the Metro Plan text are directed
toward enhancing the economic opportunity available within the Eugene-Springfield area
by assuring adequate public facilities and infrastructure to provide a transportation system
that is efficient, safe, interconnected and economically viable and fiscally stable. Adop-
tion of the policies related to nodal development will open new economic opportunities.
Adoption of policies relating to goods movement will further the goal of using the public
facilities infrastructure to support responsible economic development. Therefore, the re-
visions to TransPlan and the Metro Plan amendments comply with Goal 9.
GoallODHousing: To provide for the housing needs of citizens of the state.
The proposed revision to TransPlan and Metro Plan land use policies related to nodal de-
velopment and transit-supportive land use patterns and development (Land Use Policies
#1, #2, #3 and #5) will expand housing opportunities for the regionDs citizens. These
policies support and reinforce adopted Metro Plan fundamental principals, goals and poli-
cies to achieve compact urban growth, increase residential densities, and increase mixed-
use developments in designated areas. The proposed Metro Plan diagram designation of
ND, Nodal Development, will facilitate implementation of these housing opportunities.
Adoption of Finance Policy #5 requires that transportation facilities and improvements to
support nodal development will be included among short-term project priorities. There-
fore, the revisions to Tra~sPlan and the Metro Plan amendments comply with Goal 10.
Goal 11 DPublic Facilities and Services: To plan and develop a timely, orderly and effi-
cient arrangement of public facilities and services to serve as a framework for urban and
rural development.
The proposals to adopt revisions to TransPlan and amend the Metro Plan text concern
only the provision of transportation facilities. Transportation System Improvements Poli-
cies guide planning and implementation for all transportation system modes and Finance
Policies # I through #5 guide the development and allocation of funding for transportation
services, facilities and projects. As required by the Goal 11 administration rule (OAR
660, Division 11), a written description of the general location or service area of the pro-
jects in the 20-year Capital Investment Actions project lists are adopted as part ofthe
MetroPlan. Therefore, the revisions to TransPlan and the Metro Plan amendments com-
ply with Goal 11.
Attachment C: Page 11 of 47
Goal 12DTransportation: To provide and encourage a safe, convenient and economic
transportation system.
.
The proposals to adopt revisions to TransPlan and amend the Metro Plan text were devel-
oped to meet the goals of an integrated transportation and land use system that enhances
the Eugene-Springfield metropolitan areaDs quality of life and economic opportunity
(Goals 1 and 2). The revisions to TransPlan seek to achieve these goals through three sets
of strategies: land use measures, transportation demand management, and transportation
system improvements. Together, these strategies form a balanced and integrated frame-
work for meeting the Transportation Planning Rule purpose to Dpromote the development
of safe, convenient and economic transportation systems that are designed to reduce reli-
ance on the automobile so that the air pollution, traffic and other livability problems faced
by urban areas in other parts of the county might be avoided.D Land Use Policies encour-
age transportation-efficient development patterns, such as nodal development and transit-
supportive land use patterns which reduce trip lengths and auto dependency and support
transit, bicycling, and walking. Transportation Demand Management Policies focus on
reducing demand on the transportation system by actions that eliminate the need for vehi-
cle trips and increase the use of transit, carpooling and vanpooling, bicycling, and walk-
ing. Transportation System Improvements Policies address the need for improved opera-
tions and maintenance of the existing system and investments in system infrastructure and
services. These policies are supported by Finance Policies which provide the direction
needed to fund implementation of the land use, demand management, and system im-
provement policies.
.
Although not required by the Transportation Planning Rule when the TransPlan update
was initiated in 1992, the revised TransPlan is designed to serve as an integrated transpor-
tation and land use plan. As a result, the evaluation and selection of transportation sys-
tem plan alternatives included land use measures as well as transportation demand man-
agement strategies and transportation system improvements. Based on direction from the
elected officials in 1997, the revised TransPlan is based on the DEqual EmphasisD alterna-
tive, using all three of these fundamental components of transportation planning in a bal-
anced and integrated manner to address the identified-transportation needs of the planning
area. The goals and policies in the revised TransPlan are also proposed for adoption as
the Metro Plan transportation goals and policies. The finance component of the revised
TransPlan includes Financially Constrained 20- Year Capital Investment Actions project
lists. Where supported by the needs analysis conducted for this update of the plan, pro-
jects from the 1986 TransPlan are included in the revisions to the TransPlan and adopted
and incorporated by policy into the Metro Plan. A revised Metro Plan Transportation
elemerit and related amendments to the Metro Plan text will be adopted concurrent with
the adoption of TransPlan.
Findings of consistency with the applicable sections of the Transportation Planning Rule
found in Section II of this document are incorporated here by this reference and further
establish consistency with Goal 12. Therefore, the revisions to TransPlan and the Metro
Plan amendments comply with Goal 12.
.
Attachment C: Page 12 of 47
.
.
.
Goal 13DEnergy Conservation: To conserve energy.
The proposals to adopt revisions to TransPlan and amend the Metro Plan text will pro-
mote more compact development, will encourage the use of alternate modes of travel and
will provide a transportation system designed to increase the efficiency of travel wherever
possible. Therefore, the revisions to TransPlan and the Metro Plan amendments comply
with Goal 13.
Goal 14DUrbanization: To provide for an orderly and efficient transition from rural to
urban land use.
The proposals to adopt revisions to TransPlan and amend the Metro Plan text preserve the
distinction between urban and rural uses through the development of policies and pro-
grams that provide for more efficient urban uses within the urban growth boundary
(DGB), thus preserving rural lands for rural uses. Those projects located on rural lands
outside the UGB are permitted by the Transportation Planning Rule. The revised Trans-
Plan was developed to keep the urban transportation system viable, to anticipate future
needs and to address those needs within the financial constraints of the Plan. The type,
location and phasing of the facilities planned for in the revised TransPlan project lists are
designed to direct urban growth toward urbanizable areas and avoid unnecessary expan-
sion of the UGB. Therefore, the revisions to TransPlan and the Metro Plan amendments
comply with Goal 14.
GoallSDWillamette River Greenway: To protect, conserve, enhance and maintain the
natural, scenic, historical, agricultural, economic and recreational qualities of lands
along the Willamette River as the Willamette River Greenway.
The revisions to TransPlan and amendments to Metro Plan text protect and maintain the
scenic, historical, agricultural, economic and recreational qualities of lands along the Wil-
lamette River. The proposals to adopt revisions to TransPlan and amend the Metro Plan
text will not affect Metro Plan compliance with Goal 15. At the time the 1986 TransPlan
was adopted, a new policy 13 was added to the Metro Plan Willamette River Greenway
River Corridors and Waterways Element to state that the taking of an exception shall be
required if a non-water dependent transportation facility requires placing of fill within the
Willamette River Greenway. The widening of Beltline, River Road to Delta Highway
(Project 506) including widening or replacement of the Willamette River bridges on Belt-
line, acknowledged as part of the 1986 TransPlan (as Project 201), is subject to that pol-
icy. All TransPlan projects will meet applicable Willamette Greenway protection meas-
ures. Therefore, the revisions to TransPlan and the Metro Plan amendments comply with
Goal 15
Goals 16-19:
There are no estuarine resources, coastal shore lands, beaches and dunes or ocean re-
sources located within the Metro Plan boundary. Therefore, these goals are not applica-
ble.
Attachment C: Page 13 of 47
.
Conclusion:
Based on the above findings and supporting material in the record, we find that the pro-
posed revisions to TransPlan and amendments to the Metro Plan text are consistent with
the statewide planning goals.
II. FINDINGS OF CONSISTENCY WITH THE STATE TRANSPORTATION
PLANNING RULE, OAR 660, DIVISION 12
OAR 660-012-0015 Preparation and Coordination of Transportation System Plans
OAR 660-012-0015(2): MPOs and counties shaH prepare and amend regional TSPs
in compliance with this division. MPOs shall prepare regional TSPs for facilities of
regional significance within their jurisdiction.
The Lane Council of Governments (LCOG) is the MPO for Lane County and the cities of
Eugene and Springfield. The revisions to TransPlan which constitute the regional Trans-
portation System Plan (TSP) for those jurisdictions within the Metro Plan boundary, was
prepared by LCOG on behalf of and in conjunction with those jurisdictions.
(a) Regional TSPs shall establish a system of transportation facilities and ser-
vices adequate to meet identified regional transportation needs, and shall be
consistent with adopted elements of the state TSP;
.
As explained in findings of compliance with OAR 660-012-0020(1), the revisions to
TransPlan continue to provide a regional system of transportation facilities and services,
which is intended to meet the regionDs transportation needs. Those needs are assessed in
Chapter 3, Part 1 ofthe TransPlan. Findings establishing compliance with OAR 660-
012-030(1) explain how the regional needs have been determined.
(b) Where elements of the state TSP have not been adopted, the MPO or county
shall coordinate the preparation of the regional TSP with ODOT to assure
that state transportation needs are accommodated;
The portions of the state TSP relevant to the preparation of the regional TSP have all been
adopted. Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) staff participated in the staff
committees working on the TransPlan update. ODOT staff offered testimony in support
of plan adoption at the public hearings on TransPlan.
(c)
Regional TSPs prepared by MPOs other than metropolitan service districts
shall be adopted by the counties and cities within the jurisdiction of the
MPO;
.
Revisions to TransPlan are adopted by Lane County, Eugene and Springfield as a refine-
Attachment C: Page 14 of 47
.
.
.
ment plan of the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan (Metro Plan), the
comprehensive plan for the cities of Eugene and Springfield and unincorporated areas of
Lane County within the Metro Plan boundary.
OAR 660-012-0015(4): Cities and counties shall adopt regional and local TSPs re-
quired by this division as part of their comprehensive plans. Transportation financ-
ing programs required by OAR 660-012-0040 may be adopted as a supporting
document to the comprehensive plan.
Revisions to TransPlan are adopted by Lane County, Eugene and Springfield as a refine-
ment plan of the Metro Plan, the comprehensive plan for the cities of Eugene and Spring-
field and unincorporated areas of Lane' County within the Metro Plan boundary. Revi-
sions to TransPlan include a financing program, as required by and explained in findings
of compliance with OAR 660-012-0040.
OAR 660-012-0015(5): The preparation of TSPs shall be coordinated with affected
state and federal agencies, local governments, special districts, and private providers
of transportation services.
Preparation of revisions to TransPlan has been a coordinated effort between affected pub-
lic agencies and citizens. Local jurisdictions involved in the regional transportation plan-
ning that has resulted in TransPlan revisions include the Lane Council of Governments
(LCOG), Lane County, the cities of Eugene and Springfield, and the Lane Transit District
(L TD). Other agencies involved in the planning process include the Department of Land
Conservation and Development (DLCD), the Oregon Department of Transportation
(ODOT), the Lane Regional Air Pollution Authority (LRAP A), the Federal Highway
Administration (FHW A) and the Federal Transit Agency (FT A). This coordination also
satisfies the Goal 2 coordination requirements.
OAR 660-012-0015(6): Mass transit, transportation, airport and port districts shall
participate in the development of TSPs for those transportation facilities and ser-
vices they provide. These districts shall prepare and adopt plans for transportation
facilities and services they provide. Such plans shall be consistent with and ade-
quate to carry out relevant portions of applicable regional and local TSPs. Coop-
erative agreements executed under ORS 197.185(2) shall include the requirement
that mass transit, transportation, airport and port districts adopt a plan consistent
with the requirements of this section.
As the provider of the regionDs mass transit system, L TD has been an integral participant
in the preparation of revisions to TransPlan, which constitutes the L TD transit plan.
The Eugene Airport serves as the regional air transportation facility. Responsibility for
the planning and development of the Eugene Airport lies with the City of Eugene. The
2000 Eugene Airport Master Plan was adopted by Eugene and Lane County as a refine-
ment plan to the Metro Plan. Pursuant to TSI Other Modes Policy # 1: Eugene Airport,
the 2000 Eugene Airport Master Plan serves as the guide for future improvements of fa-
Attachment C: Page 15 of 47
cilities and services at the airport. The needs and impact of the Eugene Airport are con-
sidered as a part of the regional transportation system demands that are dealt with in revi-
sions to TransPlan and are specifically addressed in Transportation System Improvement
(TSI) Other Modes Policy # 1 and portions of the revised TransPlan that implement that
policy. In addition, the realignment of Greenhill Road (Project 486) within the airport
area, is a new project added to the Transplan as a result of coordination with airport staff
through the recently-adopted Eugene Airport Master Plan update. This project is consis-
tent with runway and site planning for the airport. Projects 454 and 485, planned on
Greenhill Road south of the airport, will also improve access and serve the Eugene Air-
port.
.
OAR 660-012-0015(7): Where conflicts are identified between proposed regional
TSPs and acknowledged comprehensive plans, representatives of affected local gov-
ernments shaH meet to discuss means to resolve the conflicts. These may include:
(a)
(b)
Changing the draft TSP to eliminate the conflicts; or
Amending acknowledged comprehensive plan provision to eliminate the con-
flicts;
For MPOs which are no.t metropolitan service districts, if conflicts persist
between regional TSPs and acknowledged comprehensive plans after efforts
to achieve compatibility, an affected local government may petition the
Commission to resolve the dispute.
.
(c)
TransPlan is adopted as a refinement plan of the Metro Plan. Several sections of the
Metro Plan are amended, concurrent with the adoption of TransPlan, including the fol-
lowing: (1) Metro Plan Section F: Transportation Element. The entire transportation
element, including the Introduction, Findings, Goals, and Policies, are revised to ensure
consistency between and among the Metro Plan and TransPlan. The Goals and Policies
that have become part of the Metro Plan Transportation Element are found in Chapter 2
of the TransPlan. (2) Metro Plan Section E: The Plan Diagram. This section is
amended to include new Metro Plan diagram designations to implement nodal develop-
ment. (3) 20-year Capital Investment Actions project lists. As required by OAR 660-
0012-0040, the final fiscally constrained project lists, provided in Chapter 3 of the Trans-
Plan, is incorporated into the Metro Plan. (4) The Metro Plan Glossary is amended to
add a definitions of Nodal Development.
OAR 660-012-0020(1): A TSP shaH establish a coordinated network of transporta-
tion facilities adequate to serve state, regional and local transportation needs.
As stated in Goal 2 ofthe revised TransPlan, a primary goal of TransPlan is to provide a
balanced, accessible, efficient and interconnected transportation system that provides for
ease of transfer between different modes of travel, such as auto to bus or bicycle to rail.
Transportation.System Improvement (TSI) System-Wide Policy #2 addresses that goal
through a policy of intermodal connectivity. That policy is to develop or promote inter-
modal linkages for connectivity and ease of transfer among all transportation modes. As
detailed in TSI Roadway Policy #3, the revised TransPlan also strives to maintain a co or-
Attachment C: Page 16 of 47
.
.
.
.
dinated roadway network that meets combined needs for travel through, within and out-
side the region. The regional roadway system must meet the transportation needs of all
users, including motorists, transit users, bicyclists, pedestrians and commercial vehicles,
and must be characterized by adequate capacity and seamless connections to roads enter-
ing the region.
The revised TransPlan meets these goals and policies through a coordinated network of
transportation facilities that includes and intertwines roadway, transit, and bicycle and
pedestrian projects and programs aimed at addressing the regionDs overall transportation
needs while reducing reliance on private automobiles and increasing use of alternate
modes of transportation. The revised TransPlan was developed in coordination with the
local, regional and state transportation planning agencies. The coordination and joint de-
velopment of revisions to TransPlan assures that the plan is adequate to serve state, re-
gional and local needs.
OAR 660-012-0020(2): The TSP shall include the following elements:
(a) A determination of traQ.sportation needs as provided in OAR 660-012-0030;
The transportation needs are characterized in the two Goals that provide the framework
for revisions to TransPlan. The first goal recognizes the need to integrate transportation
and land use planning in order to enhance livability, economic opportunity and quality of
life. The second goal specifically recognizes the need to provide for a transportation sys-
tem that is balanced, accessible, efficient, safe, interconnected, environIDentally responsi-
ble, supportive of responsible and sustainable development, responsive to community
needs and neighborhood impacts, and economically viable and financially stable. Chap-
ter 1 of the revised TransPlan summarizes the regional trends that have created the re-
gionDs current transportation needs. Findings of compliance with OAR 660-012-0030
further describe those needs, and the trends that precipitate them.
(b)
A road. plan for a system of arterials and collectors and standards for the
layout of local streets and other important non-collector street connections.
Functional classifications of roads in regional and local TSPs shall be consis-
tent with functional classifications of roads in state and regional TSPs and
shall provide for continuity between adjacent jurisdictions. The standards
for the layout of local stre.ets shall provide for safe and convenient bike and
pedestrian circulation necessary to carry out OAR 660-012-0045(3)(b). New
connections to arterials and state highways shall be, consistent with desig-
nated access management categories.
The intent of this requirement is to provide guidance on the spacing of future
extensions and connections along existing and future streets which are
needed to provide reasonably direct routes for bicycle and pedestrian travel.
The revised TransPlan is premised on four TSI roadway policies designed to address the
need for a multi-modal roadway system that responds to the needs of all forms and pur-
Attachment C: Page 17 of 47
poses oftravel, including automobile, transit, bicycle and pedestrian travel and goods
movement. These policies address the mobility and safety needs of all roadway users in
planning and constructing roadway system improvements; the use of motor vehicle level
of service (LOS) standards to maintain acceptable and reliable performance on the road-
way system and Oregon Highway Plan (OHP) performance standards on state facilities;
and the promotion or development of a regional roadway system that meets combined
needs for travel through, within and outside the region.
.
The revised TransPlan roadway implementation measures provide for several categories
of capital improvements for roadways, including new arterial links or interchanges, added
freeway lanes or major interchange improvements, arterial capacity improvements, new
collectors, and improving existing roadways to urban standards. They also includes non-
capital transportation system improvements, which provide planning and program actions
related to the regional roadway system. These actions include access management tech-
niques, neighborhood traffic calming techniques, and design considerations for all modes.
Standards for the layout of local streets are included in the Eugene Local Street Plan
(1996) and Springfield Conceptual Local Street Map (1997).
The functional classification of roads in the revised TransPlan is consistent with the func-
tional classification of roads in other relevant transportation plans. These functional clas-
sifications refer to the level of use on the road, the function and location of the roadway,
the number of lanes and connection to other routes on the transportation system. A clas-
sification map is included in TransPlan, Appendix A.
.
The revised Bikeway Plan, discussed in Chapter 3 and illustrated on the Bikeway Map in
TransPlan Appendix A, is designed to provide safe and convenient bike circulation along
and adjacent to the regionDs roadways. The revised Bikeway Plan is predicated on the
TSI Bicycle Policies detailed in Chapter 2. Those policies provide for constructing and
improving the regionDs bikeway system and providing bicycle system support facilities;
requiring bikeways along new and reconstructed arterial and major collector streets; and
requiring bikeways to connect new development with nearby neighborhood activity cen-
ters and major destinations.
Pedestrian circulation along the regionDs roadways is addressed through TSI Pedestrian
Policies # I through #3 and implementing measures. Those policies provide for a pedes-
trian environment that is well integrated with adjacent land uses and is designed to en-
hance the safety, comfort and convenience of walking; provide for a continuous pedes-
trian network with reasonably direct travel routes between destination points; and encour-
age construction of sidewalks along urban area arterial and collector roadways, except
freeways.
(c)
Public transportation plan which:
(A) Describes public transportation services for the transportation disad-
vantaged and identifies service inadequacies;
.
Attachment C: Page 18 of 47
.
Revised TransPlan TSI Transit Policy #1 is designed to improve transit services and fa-
cilities to increase the systemDs accessibility, attractiveness, and convenience for all us-
ers, including the transportation disadvantaged population. This policy supports the need
for multi-modal accessibility, including adequate public transit access for people who are
transportation disadvantaged, to employment, shopping, other commerce, medical care,
housing and leisure. In addition, the Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) system and other transit
improvements described in Chapter 3, Table 2, provide good access to public transporta-
tion services to the transportation disadvantaged. The needs of the transportation disad-
vantaged are further assessed under a separate Metro-area ParaTransit Plan, the strategies
and recommendations of which are consistent with the revised TransPlan and which is
referenced and considered in the revised TransPlan. The ParaTransit Plan identifies and
addresses the specific needs of the transportation disadvantaged population, namely those
persons who are limited in meeting their transportation needs because of age, income,
physical or mental disability and other conditions. Implementation of the ParaTransit
Plan is carried out in coordination with implementation of the revised TransPlan through
the regional Transportation Improvement Program.
(B) Describes intercity bus and passenger rail service and identifies the
location of terminals;
.
Amtrak provides passenger rail service throughout the region and Greyhound is the pri-
mary provider of inter-city bus service. TSI Other Modes Policy #3 is designed to sup-
port improvements to the existing passenger rail station and intercity bus terminals to en-
hance usability and convenience. Policy #2 supports providing rail-related infrastructure
improvements as part of the Cascadia High Speed Rail Corridor project, and reflects local
support for improvements to the passenger rail system. The revised TransPlan Goods
Movement and Intermodal Facilities Map inTransPlan Appendix A illustrates regional
transportation facilities and land uses related to goods movement, depicting facilities and
stations for truck, rail, air and pipeline.
(C) For areas within an urban growth boundary which have public tran-
sit service, identifies existing and planned transit trunk routes, exclu-
sive transit ways, terminals and major transfer stations, major transit
stops, and park-and-ride stations.
Lane Transit District (L TD) provides public transit service for the region: Revisions to
TransPlan, and specifically the transit planning portion of the revised TransPlan, the
Transit Policies of Chapter 2 and the future transit project list in Chapter 3, Table 2, are
based on the existing and planned development of the transit ways. L TD participated in
the development of the revised TransPlan, which incorporates and relies on the existing
transit routes and stations.
.
The revised TransPlan TSI Transit Policies are designed to complement and enhance the
existing L TD transit service to provide a more viable transportation alternative for a
greater percentage of the population. TSI Transit Policy #3 is designed to implement traf-
fic management strategies and other actions, where appropriate and practical, that give
Attachment C: Page 19 of 47
priority to transit and other high-occupancy vehicles. These include various traffic man-
agement techniques, such as transit signal priority, bus queue jumpers and exclusive bus
lanes that can improve transit travel time, reduce operating cost and make transit a more
attractive transportation alternative. TSI Transit Policy #4 is designed to expand the L TD
Park-and-Ride system, in order to improve access to the transit system for those who live
in areas without direct transit service. .
.
TSI Transit Policy #2 is designed to establish a Bus Rapid Transit (BR T) system com-
posed of frequent, fast transit service along major corridors and neighborhood feeders that
connect with the existing transit system. The revised TransPlan Appendix A includes a
BRT map, which depicts the proposed BRT system as a set of linked, high-speed bus cor-
ridors that would use Eugene-Springfield metropolitan area arterial streets to move pas-
sengers rapidly. These buses may have dedicated travel lanes, may employ such tech-
niques as signal priority, and will connect with bus feeder routes that serve adjacent
neighborhoods. The proposed BRT system will be phased in over 20 years.
(d) A bicycle and pedestrian plan for a network of bicycle and pedestrian routes
throughout the planning area. The network and list of facility improvements
shall be consistent with the requirements of ORS 366.514.
The revised TransPlan serves as the bicycle plan for the City of Eugene urban area. The .
Springfield Bicycle Plan (1998) serves as the bicycle master plan for the City of Spring-
field urban area. Any amendment to that plan must be consistent with TransPlan. Lane
County coordinates bicycle improvements with Eugene and Springfield when construct-
ing bicycle and pedestrian facilities within the urban transition area. All bikeway and bi-
cycle system improvements are designed to meet the standards specified in the Oregon
Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan (1995). TransPlan Appendix A includes a map of the bike-
way system, which illustrates both the existing bikeway system and the general location
of planned bikeways. The range of bikeway projects includes striped lanes, bike routes
and multi-use paths. Table 3a of Chapter 3 outlines bicycle capital improvement projects
included in the 20- Year Financially Constrained Plan. These projects include adding
striped bike lanes to roadways or adding bicycle route signs along designated corridors,
constructing bicycle lanes in conjunction with roadway projects, and adding new off-road
facilities designated for bicycle and pedestrian use both in conjunction with roadway pro-
jects and indepenqent of them.
TransPlan also incorporates a pedestrian transportation plan, the policies of which aim to
improve the quality of the pedestrian transportation system. TSI Pedestrian Policy #1 is
designed to integrate the pedestrian transportation environment with adjacent land uses to
enhance the safety, comfort and convenience of walking by providing connections be-
tween uses, improved pedestrian access to transit stops and stations, and enhanced pedes-
trian amenities such as street crossings and lighting. Pedestrian policies also aim to pro- .
vide a continuous pedestrian network that allows reasonably direct routes between desti-
nation points, and a system for providing sidewalks during roadway construction or re-
construction, and the retrofitting of sidewalks with curb ramps and the infilling of missing
sidewalk sections.
Attachment C: Page 20 of 47
.
(e) An air, rail, water and pipeline transportation plan which identifies where
public use airports, mainline and branchline railroads and railroad facilities,
port facilities, and major regional 'Pipelines and terminals are located or
planned within the planning area. For airports, the planning area shall in-
clude all areas within airport imaginary surfaces and other areas covered by
state or federal regulations;
The TSI Goods Movement Policy supports integration of goods movement considerations
into the revised TransPlan to provide reasonable and reliable travel times for moving
freight in the Eugene-Springfield metropolitan area. It also supports development of col-
laborative strategies between public agencies and freight transportation providers to im-
provement the efficiency of roadway, rail, air and pipeline goods movement. Together
with the TSI System-Wide and Roadway Policies, these policies address truck routes, rail
corridors, aviation facilities and pipelines, with the aim to maintain and enhance the re-
gionDs competitive advantage in freight distribution through a multi-model transportation
network that offers competitive choices for freight movement.
.
TransPlan TSI Other Modes Policy #1 supports the Eugene Airport, the major airport
providing commercial passenger, cargo, mail and general aviation services to the region.
The policy is designed to support public investment, provide land use controls to limit
incompatible development and continue using the Eugene Airport Master Plan to guide
improvements at the airport. An update of the Eugene Airport Master Plan was adopted
in 2000. This plan was prepared to analyze current conditions and revise forecasts for the
future. Like the previous version of the plan, the update was prepared to meet all re-
quirements of the Federal Aviation Administration, the agency that must ultimately cer-
tify the projections and what is referred to as the airport layout plan. The 2000 Eugene
Airport Master Plan includes a series of major capital improvements such as expansion of
the terminal building, addition of a new parallel runway, rerouting of Greenhill Road, and
improvements to circulation and parking.
(f) For areas within an urban area containing a population greater than 25,000
persons a plan for transportation system management and demand manage-
ment;
.
The revisions to TransPlan incorporate a Transportation Demand Management (TDM)
plan, the policies of which are directed at the development and implementation of actions
that encourage the use of modes other than single-occupant vehicles to meet daily travel
needs. The TDM policies include expanding the existing TDM programs and developing
new TDM programs that focus on reducing single-occupancy vehicle trips for both work
and nonwork purposes, and increasing the use of parking management strategies to ad-
dress both the supply and demand for vehicle parking. The revised TransPlan Chapter 3
includes a TDM implementation program, which consists of both a detailed description of
the TDM implementation process and the TDM Planning and Program Actions.
(g) A parking plan in MPO areas as provided in OAR 660-012-0045(5)(c).
Attachment C: Page 21 of 47
.
TDM Policy #2 is designed to increase the use of motor vehicle parking management
strategies in selected areas throughout the region. The revised TransPlan Chapter 3, Part
5 includes a detailed Parking Management Plan to implement the TPR requirements for
parking space reduction. The parking plan addresses both supply and demand for park-
ing, and provides mechanisms to achieve the TPR required 10% reduction in parking
spaces per capita in the Eugene-Springfield metropolitan area.
(h) Policies and land use regulations for implementing the TSP as provided in
OAR 660-012-0045.
Policies and recommended land use regulation implementation measures included in the
revised TransPlan and Metro Plan text amendments are designed to reduce reliance on the
automobile. Revised TransPlan Chapter 3, Part 4 includes recommended actions to im-
plement various transportation-related land use policies. Chapter 3, Part 4 also provides a
nodal development and integrated land use transportation plan development schedule in-
corporating recommendations to provide guidance to Eugene-Springfield metropolitan
area local governments contained in Section 7 ofLCDC Order 01-LCDC-024, adopted by
the Commission in May 2000. TransPlan Appendix G is a copy ofLCDC Order 01-
LCDC-024.
(i)
For areas within an urban growth boundary containing a population greater
than 2500 persons, a transportation financing program as provided in OAR
660-012-0040.
.
As explained in findings regarding compliance with OAR 660-012-0040, the revisions to
TransPlan include a detailed financing program. The Finance Policies aim to ensure ade-
quate funding, and support the development of a stable set of revenue sources to ade-
quately fund the range of regional transportation needs for all transportation modes. The
policies also support operating and maintaining transportation facilities in a way that re-
duces the need for more expensive future repair and requiring new development to pay
for its capacity impact. They also include policies for setting priorities for investment of
ODOT and federal revenues programmed in the regionDs Transportation Improvement
Program (TIP), and for considering and programming short-term projects. Chapter 3 of
the revised TransPlan includes details of how the Finance Policies are to be implemented,
including identifying priorities and funding sources for capital improvements required to
implement the various components of the revised TransPlan.
OAR 660-012-0025(2): Findings of compliance with applicable statewide planning
goals and acknowledged comprehensive plan policies and land use regulations shall
be developed in conjunction with the adoption of the TSP.
Compliance with all applicable statewide planning goals is established in the findings in
section I of this document. Compliance with applicable acknowledged comprehensive
plan policies and land use regulations is established in the findings in section III of this
document.
.
Attachment C: Page 22 of 47
.
.
.
OAR 660-012-0025(4): Where a Corridor Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is
prepared pursuant to the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act of
1969, the development of the refinement plan shall be coordinated with the prepara-
tion of the Corridor EIS. The refinement plan shall be adopted prior to the issuance
of the Final EIS.
Projects subject to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 will comply with this
requirement.
OAR 660-012-0030 Determination of Transportation Needs
OAR 660-012-0030(1): The TSP shall identify transportation needs relevant to
the planning area and the scale of the transportation network being planned
including:
(a) State, regional, and local transportation needs;
The revisions to TransPlan identify numerous trends for the metropolitan area that pro-
vide the focus of the area's transportation network needs. As the revised TransPlan ex-
plains, those trends include a growing regional population, a faster growing number of
automobiles per capita, and an even faster growing number of miles traveled by automo-
bile. It also recognizes that reliance on the automobile is increasing while the use of al-
ternative transportation modes is decreasing. Premised on those trends, the revised
TransPlan identifies the transportation-related issues that affect the region's quality of
life, which form the basis of the region's needs. The issues identified include the existing
and anticipated increased congestion caused by growth in automobile traffic; the affects
on air and water quality from automobile emissions; the mobility limitations caused by
land use policies that encourage the separation of uses; the preservation of existing trans-
portation systems, and the need to finance new transportation projects, as well as maintain
and operate existing facilities with funding that is not keeping pace with demand. The
revised TransPlan also recognizes issues involving increasing state and federal environ-
mental standards; federal and state policies that emphasize reducing reliance on the auto-
mobile, and federal funds supporting investment in alternative transportation modes.
Premised on those trends and issues, the revisions to TransPlan identify the transportation
needs that TransPlan strives to address. Those needs are characterized by the two over-
riding Goals of the revised TransPlan. The first goal recognizes the need to integrate
transportation and land use planning to enhance livability, economic opportunity and
quality of life. The second goal lists the specific transportation needs of the region.
Those needs are for a transportation system that is balanced, accessible, efficient, safe,
interconnected, environmentally responsible, supportive of responsible and sustainable
development, responsive to community needs and neighborhood impacts, and economi-
cally viable and financially stable.
In order to address these needs, the revised TransPlan adopts an integrated approach,
Attachment C: Page 23 of 47
combining three components that focus on the general needs and provide the balance that
can most effectively address the region's varied needs. Those components include a land
use component, to address the need for transportation-efficient development patterns; a
transportation demand management component, to address the need to reduce demand on
the transportation system; and a transportation systems improvement component, to meet
the need for improved operations and maintenance of existing systems and investments in
system infrastructure and services. Objectives and policies are adopted for each of the
components to further focus on the specific needs to be addressed through each.
.
Chapter 3 of the revised TransPlan summarizes how the transportation needs that have
arisen as a result of the identified trends have been assessed and evaluated, and details the
recommended implementation measures for each component to address these needs.
Background reports used in preparing the needs analysis are listed in the revised Trans-
Plan, Appendix D. Additional detail is provided in the model results from the Regional
Travel Forecasting Model and COMSIS TDM Strategy Evaluation Model.
Transportation needs for the Eugene-Springfield area were assessed using standard meth-
ods typically employed in regional transportation planning. Appendix C outlines the
overall update process, including a description of the development and evaluation of al-
ternative plan concepts.
The analysis of needs was based on population and employment growth forecasts consis-
tent with the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan (MetroPlan) and state-
wide forecasts. The population and employment forecasts were used to establish overall
demand for transportation.
.
As described in more detail in Appendix C, a wide range of strategies were identified to
address this demand, including land use, TDM, and TSI strategies. Different combina-
tions of these strategies were formulated as alternative plan concepts and tested using a
computer-based travel-forecasting model. The alternative plan concepts ranged from a
Base Case consisting of trends to an alternative designed to meet the vehicle miles trav-
eled reduction targets of the Transportation Planning Rule.
The alternatives development and evaluation included consideration of state and local
needs consistent with the Oregon Transportation Plan, Metro Plan, and state and local
improvement programs. Surveys were conducted to provide data on travel behavior and
input on a wide range of alternative strategies. TransPlan stakeholders and the region's
planning commissioners reviewed the results of this analysis with final direction coming
from the region's elected bodies. This direction established the framework for develop-
ment ofthe February 1998 Draft TransPlan.
Analysis of system needs was conducted using state of the practice transportation system
modeling tools. Investments identified for inclusion in the plan were based the forecasted
transportation demand stemming from the population and employment forecasts and the
land use allocation contained in Metro PIano
.
Attachment C: Page 24 of 47
.
.
.
(b) Needs of the transportation disadvantaged;
The revised TransPlan TSI Transit Policy # 1 specifically recognizes that the needs of the
transportation disadvantaged to have accessible, attractive and convenient transit facilities
and services can be met through improved services and facilities. A separate ParaTransit
Plan, which is referenced in the revised TransPlan, identifies the needs of the transporta-
tion disadvan~aged population, namely those persons who are limited in meeting their
transportation needs because of age, income, physical or mental disability or other condi-
tions. The ParaTransit Plan identifies the specific needs ofthis population, addresses
these needs and provides solutions to ensure those needs are satisfied. In addition, the
BRT system and other transit improvements listed in Chapter 3, Table 2, provide a basic
network to serve those defined as transportation disadvantaged.
(c) Needs for movement of goods and services to support industrial and com-
mercial development planned for pursuant to OAR 660-09 and Goal 9 (Eco~
nomic Development).
The TSI Goods Movement Policy recognizes the need for integration of goods movement
considerations into the transportation planning process and the regional need to maintain
and enhance the regionDs competitive advantage in freight distribution through a multi-
modal transportation network offering competitive choices for freight movement. TSI
Goods Movement Policy # 1 supports reasonable and reliable travel times for freight and
goods movements in the Eugene-Springfield metropolitan area. The revised TransPlan
graphically illustrates how the movement of goods is planned for the region, and how that
movement relates to existing and planned intermodal facilities. In addition, the technical
evaluation of projects shows that each of the major proposed projects in the revised
TransPlan will significantly enhance the movement of goods and services throughout the
metropolitan area by enhancing linkage to commercial/industrial areas, and by making
improvements to the National Highway system that will provide congestion relief. That
evaluation also shows that numerous of the proposed major projects will have a positive
impact on the economic vitality of the affected area by providing or improving access to
currently inaccessible land, undeveloped land and existing major retail and employment
areas.
OAR 660-012-0030(2): Counties or MPOs preparing regional TSPs shall rely on the
analysis of state transportation needs in adopted elements of the state TSP. Local
governments preparing local TSPs shall rely on the analyses of state and regional
transportation needs in adopted elements of the state TSP and adopted regional
TSPs.
The revised TransPlan constitutes a regional TSP, addressing the transportation needs of
Eugene, Springfield and the unincorporated area of Lane County within the Metro Plan
boundary. The revised TransPlan is based on and specifically refers to the needs analysis
in the Oregon Transportation Plan (OTP) and state plans formulated to implement the
OTP, including the Oregon Highway Plan and the Oregon Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan.
Attachment C: Page 25 of 47
ODOT staff participated in the staff committees developing technical analysis and re-
sponses to identified needs on the state and local transportation system. The specific
goals of the revised TransPlan are intended to address the regional and state transporta-
tion needs.
.
OAR 660-012-0030(3): Within urban growth boundaries, the determination of
local and regional transportation needs shall be based upon:
(a) Population and employment forecasts and distributions which are consistent
with the acknowledged comprehensive plan, including those policies which
implement Goal 14, including Goal 14Ds requirement to encourage urban de-
velopment on urban lands prior to conversion of urbanizable lands. Fore-
casts and distributions shall be for 20 years and, if desired, for longer peri-
ods;
The revisions to TransPlanrecognize the regionDs population growth as a primary trend
driving the regionsD transportation needs. Population and employment forecasts devel-
oped by the Lane Council of Governments for the 20-year planning period have been used
for both TransPlan and Metro Plan periodic review. The revised TransPlan forecasts and
projects growth in employment and population based on past trends and other factors.
Those trends reveal that the Eugene-Springfield metropolitan area population has in- .
creased by 30% in the last 20 years, and is expected to increase by an additional 43% dur-
ing the nex~ 15 years. As the revisions to TransPlan explain, during the last 25 years,
growth through the region has been relatively compact, due in large part to the Metro Plan
requirement for annexation and provision of public facilities prior to development. The
revised TransPlan population and employment distributions rely on and are consistent
with the Metro Plan population and employment forecasts.
(b) Measures adopted pursuant to OAR 660-012-0045 to encourage reduced reli-
ance on the automobile.
Policies and recommended land use regulation implementation measures included in the
revised TransPlan and Metro Plan text amendments are designed to reduce reliance on the
automobile. Revised TransPlan Chapter 3, Part 4 includes recommended action to im-
plement various transportation-related land use policies. Chapter 3, Part 4 also provides a
nodal development and integrated land use transportation plan development schedule in-
corporating recommendations to provide guidance to Eugene-Springfield metropolitan
area local governments contained in Section 7 ofLCDC Order 01-LCDC-024, adopted by
the Commission in May 2000. TransPlan Appendix G is a copy of LCDC Order 01-
LCDC-024.
OAR 660-012-0030(4): In MPO areas, calculation of local and regional transporta-
tion needs also shall be based upon accomplishment of the requirement in OAR 660-
012-0035(4) to reduce reliance on the automobile.
.
Attachment C: Page 26 of 47
.
Goal One of the revised TransPlan is to DProvide an integrated transportation land use
system that supports choices in modes of travel and development patterns that will reduce
reliance on the auto and enhance livability, economic opportunity, and the quality of life. 0
(Emphasis added). In assessing the regionDs transportation needs, the importance of re-
ducing reliance on the automobile is given significant emphasis. The list of transporta-
tion projects and the modification of land use patterns was specifically developed with the
purpose of reducing reliance on the automobile. The Regional Travel Forecast Model
uses assumptions consistent with 660-012-060(5)(a) when modeling travel behavior from
the nodal development areas proposed in the land use strategy for the plan. As demon-
strated in the findings related to compliance with OAR 660-012-0035, the revised Trans-
Plan gives thorough consideration to the requirements related to reducing reliance on the
automobile.
OAR 660-012~0035(1): The TSP shall be based upon evaluation of potential impacts
of system alternatives that can reasonably be expected to meet the identified trans-
portation needs in a safe manner and at a reasonable cost with available technology.
The following shall be evaluated as components of system alternatives:
(a)
(b)
improvements to existing facilities or services;
new facilities and services, including different modes or combinations
of modes that could reasonably meet identified transportation needs;
Transportation system management measures;
Demand management measures; and
A no-build system alternative.
.
(c)
(d)
(e)
The TransPlan update process involved evaluation of numerous system alternatives to
determine how the regionDs transportation needs could be most effectively met. Trans-
Plan Appendix C, TransPlan Update Process Documentation, outlines each ofthe alterna-
tive OconceptsD evaluated. Concept 1, the DBase Case,D was a Ono buildO alternative that
included strategies that were essentially an extension of current transportation and land
use conditions and trends. Concept #2, the ODemand Management Emphasis,O contained
higher levels of demand management strategies and lower levels of land use and system
improvement strategies. Concept #3, the OLand Use Emphasis,O contained higher levels
of land use strategies and lower levels of demand management and system improvement
strategies. Concept #4, the DSystem Changes Emphasis,O contained higher levels of sys-
tem improvement strategies and lower levels of land use and demand management strate-
gies. Concept #5, the OEqual Emphasis,O attempted to strike a balance between the three
strategy categories of land use management, demand management and systems improve-
ment. Finally, Concept #6, the DTransportation Planning Rule Vehic1e Miles Traveled
Goal ComplianceD emphasized demand management and system improvement strategies
to meet the TPR goal of reducing vehicle miles traveled by 10 percent over the current
conditions by the year 2015.
. After evaluating each of the concepts, it was determined that all alternative approximating
the Equal Emphasis Concept would most effectively address the regionOs transportation
needs. Concept #6, which would have achieved the Transportation Planning Rule VMT
Attachment C: Page 27 of 47
reduction goal, was determined to be infeasible, as it would have required a significant
increase in gas tax, a tripling of the price of parking in downtown Eugene, and an adverse
economic impact from toll bridges. Conversely, the Equal Emphasis alternative balances
the strategies available to address transportation needs and implements them through an
integrated framework. In May 2001, the Land Conservation and Development Commis-
sion adopted Commission Order 01-LCDC-24 approving an alternative standard for the
Eugene-Springfield metropolitan area based on the Equal Emphasis approach to reduced
reliance on the automobile. The land use component is addressed by the revised Trans-
Plan policies and implementation actions that encourage meeting the need for transporta-
tion-efficient development patterns, such as nodal development and transit-supportive
land use patterns, which reduce trip length and auto dependency, and support transit, bi-
cycling and walking. The transportation demand management component is supported by
the revised TransPlan policies and implementation actions that strive to meet the need to
reduce demand on the transportation system through actions that eliminate the need for
vehicle trips and increase the use of transit, carpooling and vanpooling, bicycling and
walking. The transportation systems improvement component is supported by the revised
TransPlan policies and implementation actions that address the need for improved opera-
tions and maintenance of the existing transportation system and investments in system
infrastructure and services. The revised TransPlan evaluates improvements to existing
facilities and services and incorporates planned improvements to existing facilities in its
consideration of alternatives.
.
.
OAR 660-012-0035(4): In MPO areas, regional and local TSPs shall be designed to
achieve the objectives listed in (a)-(c) below for reducing automobile vehicle miles
traveled per capita for the MPO area. The VMT target and alternative standards
are intended as means of measuring progress of metropolitan areas towards devel-
oping and implementing transportation systems and land use plans that reduce reli-
ance on the automobile. It is anticipated that metropolitan areas will accomplish
reduced reliance by changing land use patterns and transportation systems so that
walking, cycling, and use of transit are highly convenient and so that, on balance,
people need to and are likely to drive less than they do today:
(a) In MPO areas of less than 1 million people, a 5% reduction within 20 years
of the adoption of a plan as required by OAR 660-012-055(1);
(b) [applies to Portland]
(c) Through subsequent planning efforts, an additional 5 percent reduction
within 30 years of adoption of a plan as required by OAR 660-012-0055(1).
OAR 660-012-0035(5): The Commission may authorize metropolitan areas to use
alternative standards in place of the VMT reduction standard in 0035(4) to demon-
strate progress towards achieving reduced automobile reliance
As required to meet OAR 660-012-0035(5), the Eugene-Springfield metropolitan area
submitted a proposal to the Department of Land Conservation and Development for the
use of alternative performance measures demonstrating TransPlan's ability to reduce reli-
ance on the auto. In May 2001, the Land Conservation and Development Commission
Attachment C: Page 28 of 47
.
.
adopted Commission Order 01-LCDC-24 approving an alternative standard for the
Eugene-Springfield area. TransPlan Chapter 4, Part 3 details the development ofthe al-
ternative standards. The measures comprising the standard, 2005 and 2010 benchmarks
and 2015 targets for each measure are provided in Table 7 of that chapter. TransPlan Ap-
pendix G is the May 2001 LCDC order approving the alternative standard. The findings
prepared for the proposal to LCDC are reproduced below.
Elements of TransPlan Directly Contributing to Reduced Reliance on the Auto:
Achieving a reduction in automobile reliance is dependent on the success of implement-
ing the following key elements of TransPlan and the degree to which each option is de-
veloped. As mentioned above, four key elements identified by TransPlan policy officials
include Nodal Development, Bus Rapid Transit, Transportation Demand Management
and Priority Bikew(,ly Miles.
.
The diagram to the left depicts the synergistic
relationship that exists between each of the pro-
posed elements and their combined ability to re-
duce automobile dependency. The effect of
combining TSI, TDM and Land Use policies,
programs and services is relative to the degree in
which auto dependency is diminished.
As residential, retail and commercial densities
increase in specific areas, urban design features
Mixed Uses & Density Design can be implemented that give more emphasis to
Elements of Nodal Development the mobility of pedestrian, bicycle and transit
modes. The addition of parking constraints within a limited area, further affects the use of
the automobile. Connecting nodal developments with a fixed, frequent transit service,
provides competition for similar trips that would have originally been made using an
automobile. Through TDM, providing comprehensive information about alternative
transportation programs, services and facilities to residents and employees in nodal de-
velopments, insures that options other than driving can begin to be considered.
The more robust the implementation ofTSI, TDM and Land Use, the greater the effect
the combination will have reducing automobile reliance.
The integrated nature of the plan elements means that changes in any of the individual
elements will affect the outcome of the alternative performance measures. For example,
while nodal development and BRT have a primary affect on reducing Percent Non-Auto
Trips, changes.in TDM, bikeway and other plan strategies also contribute to the reduc-
tion.
Nodal Development - By design, nodal development reduces the need for individual trips
made by automobile within the node. The proximity of residential clusters to retail and
commercial services, coupled with at-grade pedestrian and bicycle facilities, fosters
movement by alternative modes within the node. A range of designs exist that can di-
Attachment C: Page 29 of 47
.
rectly affect the amount of drive alone traffic that occurs within and through the node. As
the integration of designs for pedestrian, bicycle and transit are enhanced, the accessibil-
ity and movement ofthe automobile through this environment starts to diminish.
.
Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) - BRT provides a frequent and highly reliable source oftrans-
portation that can compete with the automobile. The more frequent and reliable transit
service becomes, the easier it is for patrons to board and use the service. People have a
tendency to avoid using transit because it cannot compete with the ease and convenience
their own automobile affords them. As proposed in TransPlan the service will provide a
quick and easy transportation solution for a whole variety of trip purposes and will com-
pete well with the travel time of the automobile along major corridors. As such, the ser-
vice will start to attract more riders. As the time between buses using the BR T corridor
diminishes, so to does the need for using a schedule. Connecting viable nodes along the
BR T corridor creates the ability for more riders to use the service to get to and from the
destinations they want to go to.
Transportation Demand Management (TDM) - TDM is the essential management of in-
formation that can be provided to prospective users of alternative means of transportation
to diminish their reliance on driving to and from destinations via their own automobiles.
An essential component in establishing TDM programs is marketing. The more attractive
TDM options become, the easier they are to use; however, in order to be used the public
needs to be made aware that various programs, facilities and services exist. Nodal devel-
opment coupled with TDM marketing and services effectively reduces the reliance of sin-
gle occupancy automobile trips.
.
Priority Bikeway Miles - Priority bikeway projects consist of those projects that are along
an essential ~ore route on which the overall system depends, fill in a critical gap in the
existing bicycle system, or overcome a barrier where no other nearby existing or pro-
grammed bikeway alternatives exist (e.g., river, major street, highway), or significantly
improve bicycle users safety in a given corridor. As such, they are the key additions to
the bikeway system that support nodal development and an increase in the use of this al-
ternative mode.
Co Analysis
The assessment of compliance below focuses on the five objectives listed in the TPR.
TPR Obiective A: Achieving the alternative standard will result in a reduction in re-
liance on automobiles.
The draft plan's performance on this objective can be measured using the Travel Re-
sponse performance measures. In general, the travel response described below relies on
implementation of the nodal development, Bus Rapid Transit, and expanded TDM strate-
gies set forth in TransPlan, and the Priority Bikeway Miles.
.
Reduced reliance on the auto is indicated in the forecasted 18 percent increase in the Per-
cent Non-Auto Trips, a measure of the relative proportion oftrips occurring by alternative
Attachment C: Page 30 of 47
.
modes. This increase is particularly significant when compared to the 2015 Trend Sce-
nario which indicates an 11 percent decrease without implementation of the plan. An in-
crease in the percent of the region's trips taken by alternative modes is a direct measure of
reduced reliance on the auto. An increase indicates that improvements made to alterna-
tive modes have been successful in attracting more people to use those alternatives for
some trips. Percent Non-Auto Trips is a good measure of the cumulative effect ofthe
implementation of all of TransPlan' s key strategies.
The Percent Transit Mode Share on Congested Corridors measure also directly indicates
reduced reliance on the automobile. The target of increasing transit mode share on the
congested corridors by 72 percent over the 1995 base is a significant shift in reliance on
the automobile. The fact that this target specifically calls for reduced reliance on the
automobile in the areas of greatest congestion is also of significance. By doing so, the
measure targets reduced reliance on the automobile in those areas where the impact will
be the greatest.
TPR Obiective B: Achieving the alternative standard will accomplish a significant
increase in the availability or convenience of alternative modes of transportation.
.
The draft plan's performance on this objective can be measured using Plan Implementa-
tion and other measures. These measures reflect the implementation effort made by the
adopting agencies in nodal development, TDM, and alternative modes improvements
(e.g., additional Priority Bikeway miles, etc.).
The additional 74 miles of Priority Bikeway Miles proposed in TransPlan represents a 58
percent increase in total bikeway miles. This is part of TransPlan's overall planned in-
crease in total bikeway miles of 104 percent. An increase in bikeway miles is a direct
measure of the availability and convenience of alternative modes and is expected to result
in an increase in the use of those modes. One of the key aspects of the bike system plan-
ning effort was to identify and address existing gaps and barriers in the existing system.
These gaps and barriers are addressed in the bicycle project list, and are identified as the
"Priority Bikeways," thus increasing the convenience and availability of the bike mode.
This measure provides a direct indication of the public policy effort in TransPlan toward
reducing reliance on the auto and increasing the availability of alternative modes.
.
Both the Percent Transit Mode Share on Congested Corridors and the Percent Non-Auto
Trips also are indicators of increased availability and convenience of alternative modes.
Achieving the 72 percent increase in transit mode share along the congested corridors is a
direct result of more frequent service. 'The proposed BR T system would provide 10-
minute service along its corridors. The 10-minute threshold is a critical one for transit
service because it is considered to be the level of service at which riders do not need
schedules. This increase in convenience is one of the main reasons for the 72 percent in-
crease in mode share on congested corridors. This is part of an overall increase in transit
mode share of 49 percent.
TPR Obiective C:
Achieving the alternative standard is likely to result in a significant
Attachment C: Page 31 of 47
increase in the share of trips made by alternative modes, including walking, bicycling,
ridesharing and transit.
.
Virtually all of the plan's six performance measures are relevant to this objective. As al-
ready described above, the 72 percent increase in Transit Mode Share on Congested Cor-
ridors and the 18 percent increase in Non-Auto Trips both show a significant increase in
the share of trips made by alternative modes as a result of implementation actions in the
plan.
Also already described above is the direct relationship between the Priority Bikeway
Miles measure and the likely result of additional bike trips.
The three plan measures related to nodal development - Acres of Zoned Nodal Develop-
ment, Percent of Dwelling Units Built in Nodes and Percent of New "Total" Employment
in Nodes - are all indicators of plan implementation measures directly intended "to result
in a significant increase in the share of trips made by alternative modes". The Percent of
Dwelling Units Built in Nodes and Percent of New "Total" Employment in Nodes meas-
ures are both market response measures in that they reflect the development sector re-
sponse to the public policies proposed for nodal development. They reflect the benefits
coming from changes in development anticipated for nodal development. The very defi-
nition of nodal development included in TransPlan states that:
Nodal development is a.mixed-use pedestrian-friendly land use
pattern that seeks to increase concentrations of population and em-
ployment in well-defined areas with good transit service, a mix of
diverse and compatible land uses, and public and private improve-
ments designed to be pedestrian and transit oriented. (emphasis
added)
.
The TransPlan definition of nodes and nodal development continues, stating in part that:
Fundamental characteristics of Nodal Development require:
. Design elements that support pedestrian environments and encourage
transit use, walking and bicycling;
. A transit stop which is within walking distance (generally 1/4 mile) of
anywhere in the node;
. Mixed uses so that services are available within walking distance
These requirements are directly related to increasing the use of alternative modes. The
nodal development measures and their integration into the overall TransPlan strategy are
the basis for the increase in Percent Non-Auto Trips and the Percent Transit Mode Share
on Congested Corridors. Nodal development in TransPlan also plays a significant role in
allowing the region's VMT per capita to remain virtually unchanged over the planning
horizon.
.
TPR Obiective D:
VMT per capita is unlikely to increase by more than 5 percent.
Attachment C: Page 32 of 47
. VMT per capita in the Eugene-Springfield area is expected to remain virtually unchanged
through 2015 (0.3 percent increase).
TPR Obiective E: The alternative standard is measurable and reasonably related to
achieving the goal of reduced reliance on the automobile as described in OAR 660-012-
0000.
The measurability of each of the performance measures weighed heavily in the MPC sub-
committee's selection process. The relationship ofthese measures to reduced reliance on
the automobile is referenced in our assessment of other objectives. The table below
summarizes the measurability of each of the proposed measures. While each measure
relies on different data, the region currently maintains all of the underlying information
required to track these measures.
.
Measure Undate Process/Reliabilitv
The mode choice model relies on current data on the existing transportation
system (traffic counts, transit ridership, roadway speeds, etc.) and travel behav-
Percent Non-Auto Trips ior data (typically through travel surveys). Estimates are as reliable as the
model being used. The model is most reliable when based on an updated travel
survey and current system data.
Percent Transit Mode L TD updates its ridership data frequently. Traffic volumes are updated regu-
Share on Congested Cor- larly. Very reliable.
ridors
Priority Bikeway Miles This measure would be updated based on the sum of the distances of bikeway
nroiects determined to be "nrioritv." Very reliable.
Acres of zoned nodal de- This measure would be updated' as each city takes action to zone parcels for
velopment nodal development. Very reliable.
Percent of dwelling units This measure would be updated periodically through analysis of building per-
built in nodes mits. Very reliable.
Requires taking employment files and "cleaning" them to establish correct ad-
Percent of New "Total" dress (geographic location). GIS is then used to estimate new employment in
Employment in Nodes nodes. This is typically done on a regular basis (every two years). Fairly reli-
able. Need to define "excluded" employment to equate to standard employ-
ment codes used in the state emolovment files.
OAR 660-012-0035(6): Regional TSPs shall specify measurable objectives for each
of the following and demonstrate how the combination selected will accomplish the
objectives in section (4) ofthis rule:
Measurable objectives provided in TransPlan Chapter 4, Part 2 are summarized in (a)
through (c) below.
(a)
An increase in the modal share of non-automobile vehicle trips (i.e., transit,
bicycle, pedestrian); for example, a doubling of the modal share of non-
automobile trips;
.
Under the 2015 Financially Constrained TransPlan, the modal share of non-automobile
vehicle trips is projected to increase from existing levels, going from 14.4% to 17%. The
Attachment C: Page 33 of 47
number of households with access to 10-minute transit service is projected to increase
from 23% to 88%, an increase of281.8%. Likewise, the percentage of employment with
access to 10-minute transit service is also projected to increase significantly, from 52%
percent to 91 %, an increase of75%. Increases in the percent of households and employ-
ment with access to 10-minute transit service are projected to result in a 49% increase in
that transit mode share.
.
The percentage of roadways with sidewalks is projected to increase by 20.9%, from 58%
to 70%. Measurable increases in the percent of roadway miles with sidewalks and an in-
crease in the number of bikeway miles also contribute to the projected increase in the
modal share of non-automobile vehicle trips.
(b) An increase in average automobile occupancy (i.e., persons per vehicle) dur-
ing; for example, an increase to an average of 1.5 persons per vehicle; and
Under the 2015 Financially Constrained TransPlan, automobile drive alone trips are pro-
jected to decrease, from the existing conditions of 43.5% to 39.5%. Conversely, the
number of shared automobile trips (i.e. two or more vehicle occupants) is projected to
increase from 42.4% to 44.5%.
(c)
Where appropriate, a decrease in the number or length of automobile vehicle
trips per capita due to demand management programs, rearranging of land
uses or other means.
.
Under the 2015 Financially Constrained TransPlan scenario, auto trip lengths are pro-
jected to decrease from 3.7 miles under existing conditions to 3.6 miles.
OAR 660-012-0035(7): Regional and local TSPs shall include interim benchmarks to
assure satisfactory progress towards meeting the requirements of this section at five
year intervals over the planning period. MPOs and local governments shall evalu-
ate progress in meeting interim benchmarks at five year intervals from adoption of
the regional and local TSPs. Where interim benchmarks are not met, the relevant
TSP shall be amended to include new or additional efforts adequate to meet the re-
quirements of this section.
Table 7 of TransPlan Chapter 4, Part 3 provides 2005 and 2010 interim benchmarks for
the six performance measures comprising the LCDC-approved alternative standard.
OAR 660-012-0035(10):Transportation uses or improvements listed in OAR
660-012-0065(3)( d) to (g) and (0) and located in an urban fringe may be included in
a TSP only if the improvement project identified in the Transportation System Plan
as described in section (11) of this rule, will not significantly reduce peak hour travel
time for the route as determined pursuant to section (10) of this rule, or the jurisdic-
tion determines that the following alternatives can not reasonably satisfy the pur-
pose of the improvement project:
.
Attachment C: Page 34 of 47
.
.
.
(a)
Improvements to transportation facilities and services within the urban
growth boundary;
Transportation system management measures that do not significantly in-
crease capacity; or
Transportation demand management measures. The jurisdiction needs only
to consider alternatives that are safe and effective, consistent with applicable
standards and that can be implemented at a reasonable cost using available
technology.
(b)
(c)
Projects on the revised TransPlan Financially Constrained 20-Year Capital Investment
Actions project lists that may include construction in the urban fringe are not expected to
significantly reduce peak hour travel time for the route. These projects are required be-
cause improvements within the urban growth boundary and within city limits will not ac-
complish the same results. These projects are included as a part of the planned transpor-
tation projects because they are needed to serve areas adjacent to the UGB, such as the
Eugene Airport.
The term "urban fringe" refers to the area 5 miles beyond the Eugene-Springfield UGH.
"Significantly reduce" is defined elsewhere in the rule to mean a reduction of more than
15% from current conditions. Most of the projects listed in Chapter 3 of the revised
TransPlan are not subject to this provision because they are authorized by provisions of
OAR 660-012-0065 other than (3)(d) to (g) and (0). However, projects 66 (Jasper Road
Extension), 297 (Bloomberg Connector), and 486 (Greenhill Road, north airport bound-
ary to Airport Road) do require an evaluation of travel time because, wholly or partially,
they are realignments authorized by OAR 660-012-0065(3)(d).
Project 66 includes a short realignment of Jasper Road (the edge of the Springfield UGB)
to join the new Jasper Road Extension (wholly contained within the Springfield UGB).
The current travel time for this 1000 foot segment is about 13 seconds. The realigned
segment will be more than 1500 feet long; therefore travel time for this particular stretch
of road will increase by several seconds.
Project 297 will realign an existing segment of McVay Highway to form a new intersec-
tion with 30th Avenue and Eldon Schafer Drive. The purpose of this project is to im-
prove the operations of the 1-5/30th Avenue interchange ramp, where a.m. peak hour traf-
fic often backs onto the southbound freeway travel lanes. Under normal conditions travel
time for the 1700 foot stretch of McVay Highway between Bloomberg Road and 30th
Avenue is on the order of20 seconds, however when classes are in session at Lane Com-
munity College congestion can lead to delays of a minute or more as vehicles must nego-
tiate the intersection at 30th Avenue, weave across a lane of traffic, and turn left onto El-
don Schafer Drive. The new alignment will actually lengthen the segment between
Bloomberg Road and 30th Avenue to about 2000 feet, theoretically increasing travel time
by a second or two. However, the real effect of consolidating these two intersections will
help bring the 30th Avenue interchange closer to the Interchange Access Management
Area Spacing Standards for Approaches in the Oregon Highway Plan. It will also set the
stage for future project 257, the eventual reconstruction of the 1-5/30th Avenue inter-
Attachment C: Page 35 of 47
change.
.
Project486 will realign part of Greenhill Road near the Eugene Airport. The segment of
the road between Fiddler's Green Golf Course and Airport Road needs to be moved about
2000 feet east in order to correct an existing air safety problem at the east end of cross
runway 3-21, and to prepare for the eventual construction of a new parallel runway east of
Greenhill Road. The net effect will be to increase travel time for users of Greenhill Road
by about 25 seconds.
OAR 660-012-0040: Transportation Financing Program
OAR 660-012-0040(1): For areas within an urban growth boundary containing a
population greater than 2,500 persons, the TSP shall include a transportation
financing program.
The revised TransPlan Finance Policies in Chapter 2 identify and explain the financial
policies that guide the development and allocation of funding for transportation services,
facilities and projects. The Capital Investment Actions and Part 2 of Chapter 3 provide
the specific details of the transportation financing program as described further below.
OAR 660-012-0040(2): A transportation financing program shall include the items
listed in (a)-(d):
.
(a) A list of planned transportation facilities and major improvements;
(b) A general estimate of the timing for planned transportation facilities and ma-
jor improvements;
( c) A determination of rough cost estimates for the transportation facilities and
major improvements identified in the TSP; and
The revised TransPlan Capital Investment Actions are illustrated in Chapter 3, Tables la,
2 and 3a, that detail the 20- Year Financially Constrained project lists for Roadway Pro-
jects, Transit Projects and Bicycle Projects. These tables list the planned transportation
facilities and major improvements within each of these categories; provide an estimate of
the timing of each project, and provide a rough estimate ofthe costs for each project. The
planning cost estimates consider the type and scope of each proposed improvement. They
are rough estimates, not based on precise engineering estimates, but rather plarniing esti-
mates to assist in determining financial impacts. Most bicycle improvement projects
show a $0 for the rough cost estimate. Many projects which include restriping are ex-
pected to require no capital expenditure because they can be implemented with operating
funds. Other bicycle projects are planned for construction as part of more extensive
roadway projects, and thus the cost estimates are included as part of the roadway project
cost estimate. The timing of each project is listed as either OprogrammedO or
Ounprogrammed.O Programmed projects have been identified in a local agencyOs CIP or .
the STIP. Both "programmed" and "unprogrammed" projects within the Financially
Constrained 20- Year Capital Improvement Actions project lists have reasonable funding
sources identified that will enable them to proceed to project construction.
Attachment C: Page 36 of 47
.
(d) In metropolitan areas, policies to guide selection of transportation facility
and improvement projects for funding in the short-term to meet the stan-
dards and benchmarks established pursuant to 0035(4)-(6). Such policies
shall consider, and shall include among the priorities, facilities andim-
provements that support mixed-use, pedestrian friendly development and in-
creased use of alternative modes.
TransPlan Finance Policy #5 describes the short-term project priorities, which are to con-
sider and include among short term project priorities, those facilities and improvements
that support mixed-use, pedestrian-friendly nodal development and increased use of alter-
native modes. This policy supports consideration and programming of facilities and im-
provements that support nodal development and the increased use of alternative transpor-
tation modes.
.
OAR 660-012-0040(3): The determination of rough cost estimates is intended to
provide an estimate of the fiscal requirements to support the land uses in the ac-
knowledged comprehensive plan and allow jurisdictions to assess the adequacy of
existing and possible alternative funding mechanisms. In addition to including
rough cost estimates for each transportation facility and major improvement, the
transportation financing plan shall include a discussion of the facility providerDs
existing funding mechanisms and the ability of these and possible new mechanisms
to fund the development of each transportation facility and major improvement.
These funding mechanisms may also he described in terms of general guidelines or
local policies.
The revised TransPlan Capital Investment Actions project lists provide an estimated cost
for each capital investment project. The cost estimates are not precise, but rather are in..;
tended as planning estimates to assist in determining financial impacts. The Finance
Policies in Chapter 2 guide the development and allocation of funding for transportation
services, facilities and projects, noting the characteristics of the desired transportation fi-
nance system. The financial plan set forth in Chapter 3, Part 2, includes a discussion of
existing and possible alternative funding mechanisms.
OAR 660-012-0040(5): The transportation financing program shall provide for
phasing of major improvements to encourage infill and redevelopment of urban
lands prior to facilities and improvements which would cause premature develop-
ment of urbanizable lands or conversion of rural lands to urban uses.
.
The Capital Investment Actions project lists in the revised TransPlan include three phases
of projects: programmed projects identified to proceed to construction in the next five
years; unprogrammed projects expected to be developed in the period of 6 to 20 years,
and future projects not expected for construction during the 20-year planning period.
Most projects are concentrated within the urban lands, and are primarily directed at de-
velopments within the UGB. All projects are consistent with the provisions of the Metro
Plan that encourage infill and redevelopment of urban lands prior to the extension of ur-
Attachment C: Page 37 of 47
ban services into urbanizable land or conversion of rural land to urban uses.
.
OAR 660-012-0045 Implementation of the Transportation System Plan
Revised TransPlan Chapter 3, Part 4 includes recommended actions to implement various
transportation-related land use policies. Chapter 3, Part 4 also provides a nodal develop-
ment and integrated land use transportation plan development schedule incorporating rec-
ommendations to provide guidance to Eugene-Springfield metropolitan area local gov-
ernments contained in Section 7 of LCDC Order 01- LCDC-024, adopted by the Commis-
sion in May 2000. TransPlan Appendix G is a copy of LCDC Order 01-LCDC-024.
OAR 660-012-0050 Transportation Project Development
Local jurisdiction project development processes include referral to affected agencies.
OAR 660-012-0055 Timing of Adoption and Update of Transportation System
Plans; Exemptions
Policies and recommended land use regulation implementation measures included in the
revised TransPlan and Metro Plan text amendments are designed to reduce reliance on the
automobile. Revised TransPlan Chapter 3, Part 4 includes recommended actions to im-
plement various transportation-related land use policies. Chapter 3, Part 4 also provides a
nodal development and integrated land use transportation plan development schedule in-
corporating recommendations to provide guidance to Eugene-Springfield metropolitan
area local governments contained in Section 7 ofLCDC Order 01-LCDC-024, adopted by
the Commission on May 4, 2000. TransPlan Appendix G is a copy of LCDC Order 01-
LCDC-024.
.
OAR 660-012-0060 Plan and Land Use Regulation Amendments
Findings of consistency with OAR 660-012-0060 are required prior to adoption of Metro
Plan amendments, refinement plan amendments and land use regulation amendments by
Eugene, Springfield and Lane County elected officials.
OAR 660-012-0065 Transportation Improvements on Rural Lands
(3) The following transportation improvements are consistent with goals 3, 4,
11, and 14 subject to the requirements of this rule:
(a) Accessory transportation improvements for a use that is allowed or condi-
tionally allowed by ORS 215.213, 215.283 or OAR 660, Division 6 (Forest Lands);
(b) Transportation improvements that are allowed or conditionally allowed
by ORS 215.213, 215.283 or OAR 660, Division 6 (Forest Lands);
(c) Channelization not otherwise allowed under subsections (a) or (b) of this
section;
(d) Realignment of roads not otherwise allowed under subsection (a) or (b) of
this section;
( e) Replacement of an intersection with an interchange;
Attachment C: Page 38 of 47
.
.
.
.
(f) Continuous median turn' lane;
(g) New access roads and collectors within a built or committed exception
area, or in other areas where the function of the road is to reduce local access to or
local traffic on a state highway. These roads 'shall be limited to two travel lanes. Pri-
vate access and intersections shall be limited to rural needs or to provide adequate
emergency access.
(h) Bikeways, footpaths and recreation trails not otherwise allowed as a
modification or part of an existing road;
(i) Park and ride lots;
(j) Railroad mainlines and branchlines;
(k) Pipelines;
(I) Navigation channels;
(m) Replacement of docks and other facilities without significantly increasing
the capacity of those facilities;
(n) Expansions or alterations of public use airports that do not permit service
to a larger class of airplanes; and
(0) Transportation facilities, services and improvements other than those
listed in this rule that serve local travel needs. The travel capacity and level of ser-
vice of facilities and improvements serving local travel needs shall be limited to that
necessary to support rural land uses identified in the acknowledged comprehensive
plan or to provide adequate emergency access.
Certain projects set out in the revised TransPlan project list and described below extend
onto rural land, or constitute an expansion of a road that is coterminous with the UGB
and may encroach upon rural lands. While projects within the UGB that serve as the
boundary to the UGB may not need to be independently evaluated under this rule, all of
these projects comply with the provisions of this rule. Project 454, the expansion of
Greenhill Road, project 533, the improvements to a small portion ofIrvington Drive, pro-
ject 625, the improvements to Coburg Road, projects 654 and 606, the portion dealing
with improvements to Game Farm Road between 1-5 and Crescent Avenue, project 98,
the improvements to Thurston Road, and project 66, the improvements to Jasper Road all
constitute transportation improvements allowed by ORS 215.213 and OAR 660-012-
0065(3)(b). The functional classifications of these roads refer to the size, capacity and
design of the road, not to its location in an urban or rural setting.
Other roadway improvement projects extend beyond the UGB to some degree and are
permitted by OAR 660-012-0065(3)(b), (d) or (g). Project 66 (Jasper Road Extension) is
a new road within the Springfield UGB that requires a short realignment of Jasper Road
outside the UGH. Project 297 (Bloomberg Connector) is a realignment of a portion of
McVay Highway north of the 30th Avenue interchange. Project 485 (Greenhill Road,
Barger Drive to Airport Road) upgrades a substandard portion of Greenhill Road to meet
the requirements of OAR 660-0 12-0020(2)(b). Project 486 (Greenhill Road, north of air-
port boundary to Airport Road) is a realignment of another segment of Greenhill Road
necessitated by safety improvements to the Eugene Airport. Project 554 (Wilkes Drive)
improves a short segment of Wilkes Drive east of the UGB. Project 625 (Coburg Road)
upgrades the segment of Coburg Road leading to Armitage State Park from the south to
Attachment C: Page 39 of 47
meet the requirements of OAR 660-012-0020(2)(b). Most of these projects are permitted
by OAR 660-012-0065(3)(b). Project 486, the realignment of Greenhill Road near the
Eugene Airport, project 297, the realignment of the McVay Highway, and project 66, the
realignment of a portion of Jasper Road to form a new intersection with Jasper Road Ex-
tension, meet the definition of "realignment" specified by OAR 660-012-0065(2)(f), and
are therefore allowed by OAR 660-012-0065(3)(d).
.
In each of these instances, the proposed work is not only permitted by the Transportation
Planning Rule; it is consistent with the intent of the rule to upgrade roads to agency stan-
dards. In addition, nearly all of the projects in table 1a of chapter 3 have been previously
acknowledged. As such, they comply with the statewide planning goals and do not now
need a new or revised exception or further analysis under the Transportation Planning
Rule. Their description here to demonstrate compliance with this section of the Transpor-
tation Planning Rule is not intended to suggest that an additional exception would other-
wise be required.
OAR 660-012-0065(5) For transportation uses or improvements listed in sub-
section (3)( d) to (g) and (0) of this rule within an exclusive farm use (EFU) or
forest zone, a jurisdiction shall, in addition to demonstrating compliance
with the requirements of ORS 215.296:
(a) Identify reasonable build design alternatives, such as alternative
alignments, that are safe and can be constructed at a reasonable cost, not
considering raw land costs, with available technology. Until adoption of a lo-
cal TSP pursuant to the requirements of OAR 660-012-0035, the jurisdiction
shall consider design and operations alternatives within the project area that
would not result in a substantial reduction in peak hour travel time for pro-
jects in the urban fringe that would significantly reduce peak hour travel
time. A determination that a project will significantly reduce peak hour
travel time is based on OAR 660-012-0035(10). The jurisdiction need not con-
sider alternatives that are inconsistent with applicable standards or not ap-
proved by a registered professional engineer;
(b) Assess the effects of the identified alternatives on farm and forest
practices, considering impacts to farm and forest lands, structures and facili-
ties, considering the effects of traffic on the movement of farm and forest ve-
hicles and equipment and considering the effects of access to parcels created
on farm and forest lands; and
(c) Select from the identified alternatives, the one, or combination of
identified alternatives that has the least impact on lands in the immediate vi-
cinity devoted to farm or forest use.
.
The realignment of Greenhill Road near the Eugene Airport (Project 486), the realign-
ment of the McVay Highway (project 297) and the realignment of a short section of J as-
per Road (as part of Project 66, Jasper Road Extension) constitute realignments of high-
ways allowed under OAR 660-012-0065(3)(d).
.
Attachment C: Page 40 of 47
.
.
.
The proposal to relocate McVay Highway from the area of Bloomberg to 30th Avenue
(Proj ect 297) is a realignment of a road authorized by OAR 660-012-0065(3)( d). The ag-
riculturalland to the west of the present location of McVay Highway over which the
highway will be relocated is not currently in active agricultural use. The proposed reloca-
tion is necessary to allow other modifications to McVay Highway and the I-5/30th Avenue
interchange (project 257) and to allow traffic approaching Lane Community College
(LCC) from McVay Highway to have direct access to the college from the traffic signal at
" 30th Avenue and Eldon Schafer Drive. It improves the spacing of the intersection from 1-
5 as suggested by the 1999 Oregon Highway Plan. The present location of the intersec-
tion creates a difficult traffic flow situation for traffic from Me V ay Highway to turn onto
30th Avenue and then turn off into LCe. The proposed realignment will provide more
efficient traffic flow, eliminating a right turn movement at 30th Avenue and a left turn at
the Eldon Schafer Drive traffic signal. These turning movements require vehicles to
weave from the right lane across the left through-lane and into the left turn lane at the
signal. This weaving movement is creating operational problems now and will be more
difficult in the future as traffic volume increases. In addition, Project 297 provides the
best access to the east side ofLCC. No other alignment of McVay Highway can achieve
these results or have a lesser impact on lands in the immediate vicinity devoted to farm
and forest use. An alternative to project 297 would be to route college traffic west on
Bloomberg Road and a constructed connection to the Gonyea Interchange further west on
30th Avenue. Bloomberg Road is not designed for this type of use and this alternative
would not provide efficient access to the east side ofthe LCC. This alternative would
require greater use of agricultural land, would have greater adverse effects on farming
practices and would have a greater adverse effect on residential properties than the pro-
posed alternative. The proposed realignment will be compatible with adjacent uses, will
not force a significant change in or significantly increase the cost of accepted farm prac-
tices on surrounding lands devoted to farm use and will have the least impact on farm
lands in the immediate vicinity devoted to farm use. McVay Highway is already adjacent
to the existing uses and the area to be occupied by the relocated McVay Highway is
largely unused for farming.
The transportation project to relocate Greenhill Road from north of the airport boundary
to Airport Road (Project 486) i"s a realignment of a road authorized by OAR 660-012-
0065(3)(d). Much of the relocation will take place on property designated for airport use
and not considered rural land. The northern and a southern portion of the relocated
Greenhill Road will cross land designated and zoned for agricultural use under statewide
Goal 3. The current location of Greenhill Road is in conflict with the runway protection
zone (RPZ) for the existing diagonal runway. The present location of Greenhill Road is
also in conflict with the proposed taxiway between the current north/south runway and
the proposed second parallel runway to be built to the east. These runway projects are
included in the Eugene Airport Master Plan. Relocating Greenhill Road to the eastern
airport boundary maintains local road circulation in the area and minimizes conflicts with
the airport and other adjacent land uses. Unless Greenhill Road is closed in this area, it
must be relocated to the east. Closing Greenhill Road is not an acceptable alternative be-
cause it would result in increased traffic on State Highway 99. Much of the traffic that
uses this portion of Greenhill Road is farm traffic, including slow moving farm vehicles.
Attachment C: Page 41 of 47
The alternative of closing Greenhill Road was rejected in large part because of the ad-
verse effect on Highway 99 and agriculture related traffic that would come from such an
action. The amount agricultural land that is being affected by the proposed relocation is
being minimized. No other location with reasonable, safe design consistent with
AASHTO standards will preserve the current use of Greenhill Road, meet Federal Avia-
tion Administration (FAA) runway clearance requirements and have less effect on agri-
cultural land. An alternate location of Greenhill Road would likely not have any different
. environmental impact. Alternative locations of Greenhill Road, other than the proposed
relocation, would have greater adverse impacts to farm practices in that it would involve
the conversion of larger areas of agricultural land or the assignment of greater agricultural
traffic to Highway 99 and longer times of vehicle travel. The proposed realignment will
be compatible with adjacent uses, will not force a significant change in or significantly
increase the cost of accepted farm practices on surrounding lands devoted to farm use and
will have the least impact on farm lands in the immediate vicinity devoted to farm use.
The proposed road use will be compatible with adjacent uses and adverse impacts will be
mitigated to the greatest extent possible by limiting the amount of agricultural land dedi-
cated to the relocated road.
.
The proposal to construct a new road within the Springfield UGB between Main Street
and Jasper Road (Project 66) creates the need for realigning a short segment of Jasper
Road outside the UGB authorized by OAR 660-012-0065(3)(d). This component of the
project is essential to provide safe merging with Jasper Road and a perpendicular crossing
of the railroad tracks that are located parallel to and immediately east of Jasper Road.
Three different alternatives were presented to an 18 member Stakeholders Group before
the proposed alignment was selected. One placed the junction about 2,000 feet further
north on Jasper Road. Another placed it more than 4,000 feet to the south. Several crite-
ria were to evaluate the pros and cons of each concept, including the potential impact on
natural resources on the west side of Jasper Road (the area outside the UGB). The pro-
posed alignment was selected, in part, because each of the other alternatives would have
placed the realigned approach to Jasper Road extension within a few feet of a Class I
stream. Among a number of arguments to its credit, the proposed junction of Jasper Road
and Jasper Road Extension associated with TransPlan project 66 has less impact on pro-
tected riparian vegetation and the Willamette Greenway than all the other alternatives.
Findings in support of the selected design concept for project 66 were adopted by the
Board of County Commissioners as part of Lane County Board Order No. 98-12-9-19.
The proposed realignment will be compatible with adjacent uses, will not force a signifi-
cant change in or significantly increase the cost of accepted farm practices on surrounding
lands devoted to farm use and will have the least impact on farm lands in the immediate
vicinity devoted to farm use. The proposed road use also will be made compatible with
adjacent uses and adverse impacts will be mitigated to the greatest extent possible by lim-
iting the amount of agricultural land dedicated to the relocated road.
.
Conclusion:
.
Based on the above findings and supporting material in the record, we find that the pro-
posed revisions to TransPlan and amendments to the Metro Plan text are consistent with
Attachment C: Page 42 of 47
.
.
.
the applicable provisions ofthe Transportation Planning Rule, OAR 660, Division 12.
III. FINDINGS OF REVISED TRANSPLAN CONSISTENCY WITH METRO
PLAN POLICIES
A. Growth Management and the Urban Service Area Policies
1. The urban service area concept and sequential development shall continue to
be implemented as an essential means to achieve compact urban growth. The
planning, programming, and financing for provision of all urban services
shall be concentrated inside the projected urban service area.
The revised TransPlan goals focus on the metropolitan areaOs responsible and sustainable
development. The revised TransPlan land use policies related to nodal development and
transit-supportive land use and development help to support and reinforce this Metro Plan
policy. The Financially Constrained 20-year Capital Investment Actions list oftranspor-
tation projects is concentrated primarily within the urban service area.
2. Control of location, timing, and financing of the major public investments
that directly influence the growth form of the metropolitan area shall he
planned and coordinated on a metropolitan-wide basis.
The Financially Constrained 20-year Capital Investment Actions project lists set forth and
adopted as a part of the revisions to TransPlan, Chapter 3 were planned and coordinated
on a metropolitan-wide basis.
24. When conducting metropolitan planning studies, particularly the Public Fa-
cilities Plan and Alternative Growth Areas Study, consider the orderly provi-
sion and financing of public services and the overall impact on population
and geographical growth in the metropolitan area. Where appropriate, fu-
ture planning studies should include specific analysis of the growth impacts
suggested by that particular study for the metropolitan area.
Population and employment projections developed by the Lane Council of Governments
for the 20-year planning period were used in the preparation of revisions to TransPlan.
The revised TransPlan project lists were developed following population projections for
the metropolitan area and expected concentration of growth in nodal development areas.
The project timing set forth in revisions to TransPlan is designed to achieve an ordered
development consistent with the policies ofthe Metro Plan and the projected growth pat-
terns.
B. Economic Element Policies
10.
Provide the necessary public facilities and services to allow economic devel-
opment.
The revised TransPlan goals support transportation strategies that improve the economic
Attachment C: Page 43 of 47
vitality of the region and enhance economic opportunity. The revised TransPlan policies
were written to fulfill those goals and several policies directly address the importance of
continued economic development of the area. The Capital Investment Actions project
lists are designed to facilitate achievement of the revised TransPlan policies and objec-
tives and includes projects which will provide necessary public facilities and services to
allow economic development.
.
18. Encourage the development of transportation facilities which would improve
access to industrial and commercial areas and improve freight movement ca-
pabilities by implementing the policies and projects in the Eugene-
Springfield Metropolitan Area Transportation Plan (TransPlan) and the
Mahlon Sweet Field Master Plan, as outlined in Chapter 8(a), "On Airport
Land Use."
The revisions to TransPlan include policies and provide for transportation facilities de-
signed to improve access to industrial and commercial areas and assures efficient freight
movement.
23.
Provide for limited mixing of office, commercial, and industrial uses under
procedures which clearly define the conditions under which such uses shall
be permitted and which: (a) preserve the suitability of the affected areas for
their primary uses; (b) assure compatibility; and (c) consider the potential
for increased traffic congestion.
.
The revised TransPlan develops the nodal development strategy (Land Use Policies #1,
#2 and #5). These policies provide for the development of conditions under which the
mixing of office, commercial and industrial uses shall be permitted and still assure com-
patibility. TSI Roadway Policy #2 and TDM Policy #3 recognize the possibility of in-
creased traffic congestion and develop policies to deal with that issue.
28. Recognize the vital role of neighborhood commercial facilities in providing
services and goods to a particular neighborhood.
The revised TransPlan nodal development strategy (Land Use Policies #1 and #2) recog-
nizes the vital role of neighborhood commercial facilities and seeks to implement nodal
development strategie.s to help the region address important transportation issues.
29. Encourage the expansion or redevelopment of existing neighborhood com-
mercial facilities as surrounding residential densities increase or as the char-
acteristics of the support population change.
The revised TransPlan nodal development strategy (Land Use Policies #1 and #2) encour-
ages the redevelopment and expansion of existing neighborhood commercial facilities as
a means to respond to changes in residential densities and population.
.
C. Environmental Design Element
Attachment C: Page 44 of 47
.
.
.
4. Public and private facilities shall be designed and located in a manner that
preserves and enhances desirable features of local and neighborhood areas
and promotes their sense of identity.
The revised TransPlan System-Wide Policy #4 calls for the support of transportation
strategies that enhance neighborhood livability. The intent of this policy is to provide di-
. rection for local governments when they implement strategies to address neighborhood
traffic impacts. The revised TransPlan nodal development strategies recognize the impor-
tance of neighborhood continuity and seek to support the viability of neighborhoods by
encouraging nodal development where that is appropriate.
D. Willamette River Greenway Element
13. The taking of an exception shall be required if a non-water dependent trans-
portation facility requires placing of fin within the Willamette River Green-
way setback.
In the event final project design requires the placing of fill within the Greenway setback,
an exception will be taken prior to the final development approval ofthe project.
E.
Energy Element
7. Encourage medium and high density residential uses when balanced with
other planning policies in order to maximize the efficient utilization of all
forms of energy. The greatest energy savings can be made in the areas of
space heating and cooling and transportation. For example, the highest rela-
tive densities of residential development shall be concentrated to the greatest
extent possible in areas that are or can be well served by mass transit, para-
transit, and foot and bicycle paths.
The revised TransPlan nodal development strategy (Land Use Policies #1, #2 and #5) and
Land Use Policy #3, concerning transit supportive land use patterns, provide direction to
encourage medium and high density residential uses along transit corridors and at other
locations where access to alternative modes of transportation will achieve energy savings.
8. Commercial, residential, and recreational land uses shall be integrated to the
greatest extent possible, balanced with all planning policies to reduce travel
distances, optimize reuse of waste heat, and optimize potential on-site energy
generation.
The revised TransPlan nodal development strategy (Land Use Policies #1, #2 and #5) and
Land Use Policy #3, concerning transit supportive land use patterns, provide direction to
encourage the integration of commercial and residential land uses with the specific intent
of reducing travel distances. Revised TransPlan Bicycle Policy #3 and Pedestrian Policy
# 1 direct the development of bicycle and pedestrian environments that are integrated into
Attachment C: Page 45 of 47
all developments and provide greater opportunities for walking and bicycle use.
.
F. Metro Plan Citizen Involvement Element
4. Maintain an ongoing metropolitan region policy committee, known as the
Metropolitan Policy Committee (MPC), to provide policy direction on major Plan
updates, Plan amendments, and special studies. MPC shall resolve land use issues
. and other disagreements among the two cities and the county and fulfill other inter-
governmental functions as required by the three metropolitan governments.
The MPC has been delegated responsibility by the local Metropolitan Planning Organiza-
tion (MPO) to provide policy guidance related to the conduct of the transportation plan-
ning process, for adoption of the annual Transportation Improvement Program, and to
advise the LCOG Board (the MPO) on transportation planning related issues. This re-
sponsibility has assured that the MPC has been closely involved in the discussion of all
transportation related issues, including the adoption of revisions to TransPlan and the
Metro Plan text amendments.
5. In addition to its citizen involvement responsibilities, JPCC shall provide
guidance for intergovernmental studies and projects and shall provide a forum at
the planning commission level for resolving intergovernmental planning issues, in-
cluding proposed Metro Plan amendments.
.
The Metro Plan designates the Joint Planning Commission Committee (JPCC) as the citi-
zens committee for coordinating and soliciting citizen input on the Plan update process.
The first phase of the TransPlan amendment process began development in June 1992.
The process was developed by the Lane Council of Governments and the Transportation
Planning Committee. The JPCC reviewed and approved the public involvement plan in
September 1992. Two community workshops were held, surveys were distributed, and
presentations were made to a variety of citizen groups.
Phase II ofthe public involvement process was approved by the JPCC in April 1993 and
approved by the Metropolitan Policy Committee in May 1993. Phase II involved the se-
lection of stakeholder groups and stakeholder group representatives. The first stakeholder
meeting had 68 ofthe 88 stakeholder representatives attending and over 150 attendees.
Later stakeholder meetings had fewer participants, but all stakeholder meetings had a
strong level of citizen and stakeholder participation in the process of forming and identi-
fying issues.
Public involvement continued during Phase III of the revision to TransPlan development
process. Stakeholder participation continued in the evaluation of alternatives. Commu-
nity workshops were conducted, focus groups were formed and their input was used in
later plan development. A community survey on alternative strategies was circulated and
the results were evaluated. Throughout the revision to TransPlan development process, a
newsletter, Transportation News, was published and circulated among the public. A
guidebook focusing on transportation growth issues was developed and circulated. Cop-
Attachment C: Page 46 of 47
.
.
.
.
ies of the proposed draft revised TransPlan, including modifications as they were devel-
oped during the public involvement, were widely distributed.
After extensive citizen involvement and the involvement of key stakeholders, including
elected government officials, the Metropolitan Policy Commission and the JPCC, the re-
vision to TransPlan development process moved to public hearings and work sessions of
the Eugene, Springfield and Lane County planning commissions and the Lane County
, Roads Advisory Committee. These meetings started with April 1998 joint public hear-
ings and continued with further public hearings by the Springfield and Eugene planning
commissions. These hearings were followed by joint work sessions of the planning
commissions and the roads advisory committee. Starting in October 1998, the planning
commissions and the roads advisory committee held a combined total of 20 work sessions
to fully review the proposed revisions to TransPlan.
The JPCC involvement provided guidance and a forum for resolving the intergovernmen-
tal planning project, which included revisions to TransPlan and related amendments to
the Metro Plan text. The newsletters, public information sessions, literature distribution
and public hearings constituted a significant program of citizen information distribution
and citizen input gathering. After review and approval by the planning commissions, the
proposed revisions to TransPlan and amendments to the Metro Plan were sent on to the
governing bodies of Eugene, Springfield and Lane County.
Conclusion:
Based on the above findings and supporting material in the record, we find that the pro-
posed revisions to TransPlan are consistent with the applicable Metro Plan policies.
IV. FINDINGS THAT ADOPTION OF THE METRO PLAN AMENDMENTS
WILL NOT MAKE THE METRO PLAN INTERNALLY INCONSISTENT.
The Metro Plan text amendments adopting a revised transportation element and related
changes are consistent with applicable Metro Plan policies and will not make the Metro
Plan internally inconsistent for the same reasons described in section III above. To pre-
serve consistency within the Metro Plan upon adoption of the Metro Plan text amend-
ments concerning the revised transportation element, other text amendments are neces-
sary. These text amendments are consistent with the proposed amendments to the trans-
portation element portion of the Metro Plan and will maintain the internal consistency of
the Metro Plan.
Conclusion:
Based on the above findings and supporting material in the record, we find that the pro-
posed Metro Plan amendments will not make the Metro Plan internally inconsistent.
Attachment C: Page 47 of 47